Case T-341/08: Action brought on 19 August 2008 — Hess Group v OHIM — Coloma Navarro (COLOMÉ)
Date: 2008-08-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), product designation, wine

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/41

Action brought on 19 August 2008 — Hess Group v
OHIM — Coloma Navarro (COLOMÉ)

Action brought on 18 August 2008 — Batchelor v
Commission

(Case T-341/08)

(2008/C 272/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

(Case T-342/08)

(2008/C 272/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hess Group AG (Berna, Switzerland) (represented by:
E. Armijo Chávarri, A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

Applicant: Edward William Batchelor (Brussels, Belgium) (repre-
sented by: F. Young, Solicitor, A. Barav, Barrister and D.
Reymond, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
José Félix Coloma Navarro (Badajoz, Spain)

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Declare the action against the Decision of the First Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2008 lodged in time and in the
required form and, via the appropriate procedure, order the
annulment of that decision and order expressly that OHIM
pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Annul the implied negative decision deemed, pursuant to
Article 8(3) of the Access Regulation, to have been made by
the European Commission on 11 June 2008, the express
negative decision SG/E/3/HP/cr D(2008)5545, made by the
Commission on 3 July 2008, and the express negative deci-
sion SG/E/3/EV/psi D(2008)6636, made by the Commission
on 7 August 2008, relating to a request for access to docu-
ments presented pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May
2001 regarding public access
to European Parliament,
Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145,
p. 43);

— Order the Commission to pay its own costs and the appli-

cant's costs in relation to these proceedings.

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of
invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘COLOMÉ’ for goods in
Class 33 (wines) (Application for Registration No 2.140.283).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for the declaration of
Navarro.

invalidity: D. José Félix Coloma

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Spanish figurative
marks ‘COLOMA’ for goods in Class 33 (wines).

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration
of invalidity upheld.

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

in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)

Pleas
No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

This application for annulment, pursuant to Article 230(4), is
brought against the Commission's implied negative decision of
11 June 2008 and express negative decisions, SG/E/3/HP/cr
D(2008)5545 of 3 July 2008 and SG/E/3/EV/psi D(2008)6636
to Regulation (EC)
of 7 August 2008, made pursuant
No 1049/2001 (1)
(‘the Access Regulation’) by which the
Commission rejected the applicant's request for access to docu-
ments the Commission sent to, and received from, the Belgian
authorities, relating to the notification of measures taken under
Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordina-
tion of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or
administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit
of television broadcasting activities (2), as amended by Directive
97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
30 June 1997 (3).

The applicant claims that the Commission's failure to provide
adequate and sufficient reasons for denying access to the docu-
ments requested, amounts to a violation of Article 253 EC and
Article 8(1) of the Access Regulation and that, consequently, the
contested decision is vitiated by an infringement of an essential
procedural requirement, as envisaged in Article 230(2) EC.