Case T-169/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Hennig Arzneimittel (Cellutrim) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Cellutrim — Earlier national word mark Cellidrin — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2008-12-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing industry, trade mark, trade-mark law

C 44/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2009

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December
2008 — Lofaro v Commission

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: X. Lewis and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

(Case T-293/07 P) (1)

Re:

(Appeal — Staff cases — Temporary staff — Time-limit for
complaint — Date of bringing of complaint — Receipt by the
Administration — Principle of legal certainty)

(2009/C 44/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Alessandro Lofaro (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
J.-L. Laffineur, lawyer)

Application for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 888/2006 of 16 June 2006 concerning the classification of
certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2006 L 165,
p. 6).

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. RSA Security Ireland Ltd shall pay the costs.

Respondent: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and K. Hermann, Agents)

(1) OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.

Re:

Appeal against the order of 24 May 2007 of the European
Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) in Joined Cases
F-27/06 and F-75/06 Lofaro v Commission (not yet published in
the ECR) seeking the setting aside of that order

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Alessandro Lofaro to bear his own costs and pay the

Commission's costs before the Court of First Intance.

(1) OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 December 2008
— RSA Security Ireland v Commission

(Case T-227/06) (1)

(Action for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classi-
fication in the Combined Nomenclature — Person not indivi-
dually concerned — Inadmissibility)

(2009/C 44/80)

Language of the case: English

Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008
— Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Hennig
Arzneimittel (Cellutrim)

(Case T-169/07) (1)

(Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Com-
munity word mark Cellutrim — Earlier national word mark
Cellidrin — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Action in part manifestly inad-
missible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in
law)

(2009/C 44/81)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Longevity Health Products,
(represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

Inc.

(Nassau, Bahamas)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
intervening before the Court of First Instance: Hennig Arzneimittel
GmbH & Co. KG (Flörsheim, Germany)
(represented by: S.
Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, lawyers)

Re:

Parties

Applicant: RSA Security Ireland Ltd (Shannon, Ireland) (repre-
sented by: B. Conway, Barrister, and S. Daly, Solicitor)

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal
of OHIM of 7 March 2007 (Case R 1123/2006-1) concerning
invalidity proceedings between, initially, Celltech Pharma GmbH
& Co. KG and, subsequently, Hennig Arzneimittel GmbH &
Co. KG and Longevity Health Products, Inc.

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/47

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Longevity Health Products, Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

Action brought on 19 September 2008 — ICF v
Commission

(Case T-406/08)

(2009/C 44/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 December 2008
— RSA Security Ireland v Commission

(Case T-210/07) (1)

(Action for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Issue of
binding tariff information — Power of the national customs
authorities — Non-actionable measure — Inadmissibility)

(2009/C 44/82)

Language of the case: English

Applicant:
Tunisia)
lawyers)

Industries Chimiques du Fluor SA (ICF)

(Tunis,
(represented by M. van der Woude and T. Hennen,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— in the alternative, reduce substantially the fine imposed on

the applicant;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Parties

Applicant: RSA Security Ireland (Shannon, Ireland) (represented
by: B. Conway, Barrister, and S. Daly, Solicitor)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: S. Schønberg and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of a decision allegedly taken by
the Commission and communicated to the applicant by email
the Irish Revenue Commissioners of 30 March 2007
of
concerning the classification of goods under a certain heading
of the Combined Nomenclature.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. RSA Security Ireland Ltd shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.

By this application the applicant seeks the annulment in part of
Commission Decision C(2008) 3043 final of 25 June 2008 in
Case COMP/39.180 — Aluminium fluoride, by which the
Commission found that certain undertakings including the
applicant had infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of
the Agreement on the European Economic Area by agreeing, on
in aluminium fluoride, on a target price
the world market
increase, by examining various regions of the world including
Europe to establish a general price level and in some cases to
agree on a division of the market, and by exchanging commer-
cially sensitive information.

In support of its application, the applicant puts forward four
pleas in law:

— infringement of the rights of the defence and Article 27 of
Regulation No 1/2003 (1), in that the infringement described
in the statement of objections differed from that eventually
established in the contested decision and the contested deci-
sion was based on documents not mentioned in the state-
ment of objections;

— infringement of Article 81 EC, as the contested decision
made an incorrect legal classification of the acts the appli-
cant was accused of, by wrongly classifying a fortuitous
exchange of information as an agreement and/or a concerted
practice within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC. Moreover,
the disputed acts could not in any event, according to the
applicant, be classified as a single continuous infringement;