Case T-316/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Commission v Premium (Arbitration clause — Contracts entered into under a specific research and technological development programme in the field of information technology — Repayment of part of the advance payment made by the Community — Default interest)
Date: 2008-11-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/23

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November
2008 — Ercros v OHIM

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November
2008 — Commission v Premium

(Case T-315/06) (1)

(Case T-316/06) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for the Community figurative mark TAI CROS —
Earlier national word marks CROS, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA
CROS and ERCROS — Earlier national figurative marks
CROS — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of
confusion — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(Arbitration clause — Contracts entered into under a specific
research and technological development programme in the
field of information technology — Repayment of part of the
advance payment made by the Community — Default
interest)

(2009/C 6/47)

Language of the case: French

(2009/C 6/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ercros, SA (Barcelona, Spain)
R. Thierie, lawyer)

(represented by:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Degussa GmbH, formerly Degussa AG (Düsseldorf, Germany)
(represented by: S. Schäffler, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal
of OHIM of 20 September 2006 (Case R 29/2006-1)
concerning opposition proceedings between Ercros, SA and
Degussa GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ercros, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: E. Montaguti, acting as Agent, assisted by J.-L. Fagnart
and F. Longfils, lawyers)

Defendant: Premium SA (Le Roeulx, Belgium) (represented by:
S. Bertouille and D. Joos de ter Beerst, lawyers)

Re:

Action under Article 238 EC claiming that the defendant should
be ordered to repay part of the advance payments made by the
Community, together with default interest, because of failure to
comply with certain contractual obligations

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. orders Premium SA to pay to the Commission the principal sum of

EUR 57 605,74, together with default interest:

— at the rate of 3,36 % per annum for the period from 1 October

to 31 December 1998;

— at the rate of 3,47 % per annum for the period from 1 January

to 31 December 1999;

— at the rate of 2,74 % per annum for the period from 1 January

to 31 December 2000;

— at the rate of 4,26 % per annum for the period from 1 January

2001 to 31 December 2002;

— at the rate of 3,29 % per annum for the period from 1 January

to 31 December 2003;

— at the rate of 2,27 % per annum for the period from 1 January

to 31 December 2004;

— at the rate of 2,05 % per annum for the period from 1 January

to 31 December 2005;

C 6/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.1.2009

— at the rate of 2,11 % per annum for the period from 1 January

2006 to the date of the present judgment;

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Wilderspin and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

— at the rate applicable under French law for the period from the
date of the present judgment to that of final settlement of the
principal sum;

Re:

2. orders Premium to pay to the Commission the principal sum of

EUR 30 988,74, together with default interest:

— at the rate of 3,95 % per annum for the period from 1 October

to 31 December 1998;

— at the rate of 2,85 % per annum for the period from 1 January

to 31 December 1999;

— at the rate of 3,6 % per annum for the period from 1 January

2000 to 31 December 2001;

— at the rate of 2,95 % per annum for the period from 1 January

to 31 December 2002;

Application for, first, annulment of the Commission's decision
of 19 October 2006 to reject the applicant's offer in a call for
tenders for support services for the system of registries estab-
lished under Directive 2003/87/CE of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme
for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Com-
munity and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003
L 275, p. 32), the Community independent transaction log
(CITL), with technical maintenance and user support (OJ 2006
S 102), and an application for annulment of the decision to
award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, a claim
for damages.

— at the rate of 2,15 % per annum for the period from 1 January

Operative part of the judgment

2003 to 31 December 2004;

— at the rate of 2,4 % per annum for the period from 1 January

to 31 December 2005;

— at the rate of 2,5 % per annum for the period from 1 January

2006 to the date of the present judgment;

— at the rate applicable under Danish law for the period from the
date of the present judgment to that of final settlement of the
principal sum;

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoino-
nion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay its own costs and those
incurred by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

3. orders Premium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November
2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-406/06) (1)

(Public service contracts — Invitation to tender concerning
support services for the system of registries established under
Directive 2003/87/EC — Rejection of a tender — Decision to
award the contract to another tenderer — Manifest error of
assessment — Obligation to state the reasons on which the
decision is based — Claim for damages)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November
2008 — Galderma v OHIM — Lelas (Nanolat)

(Case T-6/07) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for the Community word mark Nanolat — Earlier
national word mark TANNOLACT — No likelihood of confu-
sion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 6/49)

Language of the case: German

(2009/C 6/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Galderma SA (Cham, Switzerland)
N. Hebeis, lawyer)

(represented by:

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepi-
koinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece)
(represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting
as Agent)