Case T-534/08: Action brought on 1 December 2008 — Granuband v OHIM — Granuflex (GRANUflex)
Date: 2008-12-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/55

The applicant raises the following pleas in law in support of its
action:

First, the applicant claims that the contested decision was taken
in breach of the obligation to state proper reasons laid down in
Article 253 EC and Article 20(4) of Council Regulation
No 1/2003. In this connection the applicant complains that the
Commission did not demonstrate in a satisfactory manner that
it was in possession of information and evidence on the basis of
which it could reasonably be asserted that the applicant had
committed the infringement
it was accused of. Moreover,
according to the applicant, the Commission's decision did not
describe with sufficient precision the facts which the Commis-
sion intended to examine in the course of the inspection. The
applicant further submits that the Commission breached the
obligations of describing in the contested decision the essential
features of the infringement the applicant was accused of.

the applicant claims

Second,
the contested decision
infringed the principle of proportionality, in that the Commis-
sion did not, according to the applicant, choose the method of
carrying out the procedure which would have been the least
oppressive for the applicant.

that

Third, the applicant claims that the Commission did not ensure
the applicant's rights of defence, particularly in connection with
the infringements alleged by the applicant in relation to the
contested decision in the first plea in law. In connection with
the above, the applicant submits that it was not able to deter-
mine clearly what practices would be the subject of
the
Commission inspection and consequently to make a proper
assessment of whether and to what extent the inspection was
justified or of its obligation to cooperate with the Commission
in the course of the inspection.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81
and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

Action brought on 1 December 2008 — Granuband v
OHIM — Granuflex (GRANUflex)

(Case T-534/08)

(2009/C 44/96)

Language in which the application was lodged: Dutch

Form of order sought

— Annul, or at

least

review,

the decision of OHIM of
15 September 2008, served on 24 September 2008, on
grounds of infringement of the provisions of Article 52(1),
in conjunction with Article 8(4), of Regulation No 40/94,
and

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of
invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark GRANUFLEX for
goods in Classes 17, 19 and 27 — Community Trade Mark
No 943118

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Granuband BV

Applicant for the declaration of
mark: Granuflex Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft.

invalidity of the Community trade

invalidity:
for
Trade-mark right of applicant
commercial designation GRANUFLEX for goods and services in
Classes 17, 19, 27 and 37

the declaration of

Decision of the Cancellation Division: declaration that the Com-
munity trade mark is invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal brought
by the applicant

Pleas in law: breach of Articles 52(1)(c) and 8(4) of Regulation
No 40/94.

Action brought on 5 December 2008 — Etimine and
Etiproducts v Commission

(Case T-539/08)

(2009/C 44/97)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Etimine SA (Bettembourg, Luxembourg) and Ab
Etiproducts Oy (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: C. Mereu and
K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

Applicant: Granuband BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented
by: M. Ellens, lawyer)

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

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— partially annul

the contested measures by annulling the
entries in Annex 1G to the contested measure relating to the
following substances:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Granuflex Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft (Budapest, Hungary)

— boric acid; boric acid, crude natural,

— diboron trioxide; boric oxide,