Case T-310/08: Action brought on 8 August 2008 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM (executive edition)
Date: 2008-08-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), household electrical appliance, trade-mark law

C 247/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.9.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community
ASHLEY’ for various goods in classes 3, 18, 24 and 25

trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LAURA

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

sign cited:

International

the figurative mark ‘Ashley's’

trade mark registration
Mark
or
No 311 675 of
for goods in
class 25; Italian trade mark registration No 517 151 of the
figurative mark ‘Ashley's’ for goods in class 3, 18, 24 and 25;
international trade mark registration No 646 926 of the figura-
tive mark ‘Ashley's il primo Cashmere Italiano’ for goods in
class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its
entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation
No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to establish whether the
applicant was using the Community trade mark applied for
without due cause.

Appeal brought on 1 August 2008 by Kurt-Wolfgang
Braun-Neumann against the judgment of the Civil Service
Tribunal delivered on 23 May 2008 in Case F-79/07,
Braun-Neumann v Parliament

(Case T-306/08 P)

(2008/C 247/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service

Tribunal of the European Union for judgment.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is directed against the Civil Service Tribunal's order
of 23 May 2008 in Case F-79/07 Braun-Neumann v Parliament,
dismissing as inadmissible the action brought by the appellant.

The appellant submits in support of his appeal that the Civil
Service Tribunal erred in law in its interpretation of Article 90(2)
of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Commu-
nities, since its interpretation infringes general principles of
Community law. In the appellant's view, the Tribunal's interpre-
tation of a letter as an act adversely affecting it is incorrect.
Further, the principle of legal certainty can be satisfied only if
the absence of information about available legal remedies is
regarded as prejudicial to the determination of when the period
for lodging the complaint commenced, since otherwise the liti-
gant's rights would be undermined. Lastly, the Tribunal's inter-
pretation should be regarded as disproportionate in view of the
consequences for the appellant.

Action brought on 8 August 2008 — BSH Bosch und
Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM (executive edition)

(Case T-310/08)

(2008/C 247/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich,
Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

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

Appellant: Kurt-Wolfgang Braun-Neumann (Lohr am Main,
Germany) (represented by: P. Ames, Rechtsanwalt)

Form of order sought

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Set aside the order of the European Union Civil Service

Tribunal of 23 May 2008 in Case F-79/07;

— rule on the merits and uphold the appellant's original appli-
cation and therefore order the Parliament to pay him with
retroactive effect from 1 August 2004 the other half of the
survivor's pension in right of Mrs Mandt in the monthly
sum of EUR 1 670,84 plus interest at the rate applied by
the European Central Bank on the marginal lending facility,
increased by 3 %;

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) of 5 June 2008 in Case R-845/2007-1;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and to pay
those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned:
edition’
No 4 908 182).

for goods

the word mark ‘executive
in Classes 7, 9 and 11 (application

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application.

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/23

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1), as
the requisite
minimum level of distinctiveness.

the mark applied for has

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

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

Action brought on 15 August 2008 — Melli Bank v
Council

(Case T-332/08)

(2008/C 247/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Melli Bank plc (London, United Kingdom)
(repre-
sented by: R. Gordon QC, M. Hoskins, Barrister, and T. Din,
Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Paragraph 4, section 8, of the annex to Council Decision
2008/475/EC concerning restrictive measures against Iran is
declared void in so far as it relates to Melli Bank plc.

— If the Court finds that Article 7(2)(d) of the regulation is
mandatory in effect, Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation
423/2007/EC concerning restrictive measures against Iran is
declared to be inapplicable.

— The Council should pay the applicant's costs of

these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of
Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 (1)
imple-
menting Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007
concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as the
applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons,
entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are
frozen in accordance with this provision. The applicant
contested the same decision in Case T-246/08, Melli Bank v
Council (2).

In support of its application in the present case, the applicant
submits that the Council has infringed its obligation to state
reasons, as it did not give any individual and specific reasons for
the listing of the applicant. The applicant alleges that it has been
listed, not because it has itself been involved in providing
support to Iran's nuclear activities, but solely because it is a
subsidiary of a parent company which is believed to have been
involved in such activities.

is

The applicant further submits that, if Article 7(2)(d) of Council
Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (3)
to be interpreted as
imposing an obligation on the Council to list every subsidiary
owned or controlled by a parent company which has itself been
included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and
bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen, this
provision should be declared inapplicable as it contravenes the
principle of proportionality.

that a mandatory listing of

The applicant considers
the
subsidiary is unnecessary and inappropriate to achieve the
purposes of the regulation, as the listing of the parent company
prevents a subsidiary based in the European Union from taking
instructions from its parent company which would directly or
indirectly circumvent the effect of
the parent
company.

the listing of

the said
Finally, the applicant claims that Article 7(2)(d) of
Council regulation should be interpreted so as to give the
Council a discretionary power to list a subsidiary of a listed
parent company and not so as to impose an obligation on the
Council in this sense.

(1) OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29.
(2) OJ 2008 C 197, p. 34.
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning

restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1).

Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2008 —
Hotel Cipriani v Commission

(Case T-254/00 R)

(2008/C 247/46)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court of First Instance has ordered that the
case be removed from the register.

Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of
10 July 2008 — Cornwell v Commission

(Case T-102/04) (1)

(2008/C 247/47)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber)
has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.