Case T-298/08: Action brought on 31 July 2008 — Aldi v OHIM — Catalana de Telecomunicacions Societat Operadora de Xarxes (ALDI)
Date: 2008-07-31
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), telecommunications, trade-mark law

C 247/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.9.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant and the Commission signed a contract
in
May 2005 concerning the promotion of a project in the context
of the INTI programme. By letter dated 23 May 2008, the
defendant granted the applicant a lower final payment than that
for which the latter had applied. The present action is directed
against the rejection of its application for payment of the costs
exceeding the authorised sum.

The applicant asserts in support of its action that the Commis-
sion's view that a change of project participants after the
conclusion of the financing arrangement is only possible if an
appropriate alteration agreement
is concluded is unfounded.
This is due to the fact that a provision to that effect is not
included in the financing arrangement. Further, the Commission
refused to recognise costs on various grounds, which are incom-
patible with the financing arrangement and with previous insti-
tutional practice.

Action brought on 29 July 2008 — Mepos Electronics v
OHIM (MEPOS)

(Case T-297/08)

(2008/C 247/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

European Union as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding
that the examiner has followed a lawful proceeding in the appli-
cation process; infringement of Article 78 of Council Regulation
No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred by not granting the
request for restitutio in integrum for failure to comply with the
time-limit to file an appeal.

Action brought on 31 July 2008 — Aldi v OHIM —
Catalana de Telecomunicacions Societat Operadora de
Xarxes (ALDI)

(Case T-298/08)

(2008/C 247/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr,
Germany)
(represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L.
Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Catalana de Telecomunicacions Societat Operadora de Xarxes,
SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Applicant: Mepos Electronics Ltd (Kaohsiung, Taiwan)
sented by M. Wirtz, lawyer)

(repre-

Form of order sought

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
Internal Market
for Harmonisation in the
and Designs) of 14 May 2008 (Case

the Office
(Trade Marks
No R 1301/2007-1);

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 28 May 2008 in case R 437/2008-2;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Grant the request for restitutio in integrum; and

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MEPOS’ for
goods in class 9 — application No 5 770 383

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the applicant's trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:
Infringement of Articles 36, 77(a) and 79 of
Council Regulation No 40/94, as well as Article 6 of European
Convention on Human Rights and Article 6(2) of Treaty on

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘ALDI’ for goods
and 39 (application
and
No 3 360 914).

in Classes 35, 38,

services

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
de
Catalana
Xarxes, SA.

Societat Operadora

Telecomunicacions

de

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Spanish word mark ‘ALPI’ for
services in Class 38 (Mark No 2 262 920), the Spanish word
mark ‘ALPI’ for services in Class 39 (Mark No 2 262 921) and
the international word mark ‘ALPI’ for services in Classes 37,
38, 39 and 42 (Mark No 789 344), opposition being filed to
registration for services in Class 38.

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/21

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Plea in law:
Infringement of Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between
the conflicting marks.

(1) Council Regulation No 40/94 0f 20 December 1991 on the Com-

munity trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 1 August 2008 — Hoo Hing v OHIM —
Tresplain Investments (Golden Elephant Brand)

(Case T-300/08)

(2008/C 247/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd (Romford, United Kingdom)
(represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the
Board of Appeal to pay the costs jointly and severally.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the application for a
Registered Community trade mark subject of
declaration of
invalidity: The figurative mark ‘Golden Elephant
Brand’ for goods in class 30 — Community trade mark registra-
tion No 241 810

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade
mark: The applicant

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:
The unregistered figurative mark ‘GOLDEN ELEPHANT’, which
had been in use in the United Kingdom

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application
for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the
Cancellation Division

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred when it held that the
allegation based upon Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation
No 40/94 was inadmissible, as well as when it failed to find that
the objection to registration based upon Article 51(1)(b) of
Council Regulation No 40/94 was admissible and well founded.

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tresplain
Investments Ltd (Hong Kong, China)

Action brought on 6 August 2008 — Laura Ashley v OHIM
— Tiziana Bucci (LAURA ASHLEY)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1,
in
respect of the finding that Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 ground of objection was inadmissible;

— Alternatively, alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal
of the OHIM of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1 such
that Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94
ground of objection is held to be admissible and well
founded;

— Alter the decision of

the First Board of Appeal of

the
OHIM of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1 such that
Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 ground of
objection is held to be admissible and well founded;

(Case T-301/08)

(2008/C 247/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laura Ashley Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (repre-
sented by: J. Guise, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tiziana
Bucci (Viareggio, Italy)

— Provided that the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
the OHIM of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1 is altered
as requested, alter further the same decision so that Com-
munity trade mark No 241 810 is declared invalid on either
or both of these additional grounds as appropriate; and

— Order OHIM or the other party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs. Alternatively, order

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 28 May 2008 in case R 1237/2007-1 and
reject the opposition; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.