Case T-589/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
Date: 2008-12-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, invitation to tender, reduction of gas emissions

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/43

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision
and dismissed the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there
was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks
concerned; Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation
40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to find that the trade mark
cited in the opposition proceedings has reputation in the United
Kingdom.

Action brought on 30 December 2008 — Carpent
Languages v Commission

(Case T-582/08)

(2009/C 69/96)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carpent Languages SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (repre-
sented by: P. Goergen, lawyer)

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission to reject
its tender made in respect of the call for tenders for lot No 4 of
the contract notice ‘Multiple framework contracts for meeting
and conference organisation services’ (OJ 2008 S 58-77561),
and the decision to award the contract to another tenderer. The
applicant also seeks compensation for the loss allegedly caused
by the contested decision.

In support of its action, the applicant raises three pleas in law,
alleging:

tenderer nor the advantages of

— breach of the duty to state reasons, since the Commission
the number of points obtained by the
stated neither
successful
the successful
tender over that of the applicant; furthermore, the Commis-
sion did not inform the applicant which of the two case
studies which it submitted did not obtain a sufficient
number of points;

— a manifest error of assessment,

in that

the Evaluation
Committee attributed a score of less than 70 points to one
of the case studies submitted by the applicant despite the
fact that the applicant set out in detail, in accordance with
the specifications, the approach which it would have taken
to supply the services required, the means which it would
have allocated to the different tasks, the work schedule and
an estimate of the costs;

— a breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discri-
mination as defined in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regu-
lation, since the successful tenderer did not fulfil the selec-
tion criteria in respect of technical capacity.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Evropaïki
Dynamiki v Commission

Form of order sought

— Declare the action admissible and well founded;

— Accordingly, annul

the decision to reject

the applicant's

tender;

— Annul the decision awarding the contract to ADIE TECH-

NICS SPRL;

Parties

(Case T-589/08)

(2009/C 69/97)

Language of the case: English

— In the alternative, in the event that the Court does not grant
the application for annulment of
the contested decision,
order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
EUR 200 000 (two hundred thousand Euros) as compensa-
tion for the applicant's pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses;

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

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay all the costs.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

C 69/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.3.2009

Form of order sought

Action brought on 5 January 2009 — Dornbracht v OHIM
— Metaform Lucchese (META)

— annul the decisions of the Commission to evaluate the appli-
cant's bids as not successful and award the contracts to the
successful contractor;

(Case T-1/09)

(2009/C 69/98)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

— order

the Commission to pay the applicant's damages
suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question
for an amount of 920 000 EUR to be increased up to
1 700 000 EUR depending on the final amount of the CITL
project;

Parties

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other
costs and expenses incurred in connection with this applica-
tion, even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn,
Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G.
Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and M.
Bergermann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Metaform Lucchese SpA (Monsagrati, Italy)

In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the
defendant's decisions to reject its bids submitted in response to
a call for an open tender ENV.C2/FRA/2008/0017 regarding the
‘Emission Trading Scheme — CITL/CR’ (1) and to award the
contract
further
to the successful contractor. The applicant
requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of
the tender procedure.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Design) of 3 November 2008 (R 1152/2006-4);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs including those costs

incurred before the Board of Appeal.

In support of its claims the applicant puts forward two pleas in
law.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First, it argues that the Commission committed several manifest
errors of assessment while evaluating the three bids submitted
by the applicant to the three Lots of the tender respectively.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to
observe the principles of transparency and equal treatment and
therefore infringed relevant provisions reflecting these principles
the financial regulation (2).
such as Articles 92 and 100 of
Moreover, the applicant argues that the contracting authority
infringed its obligation to sufficiently state reasons for its deci-
sion. It claims as well that the Commission failed to provide it
with additional
information that it requested after the award
decision regarding the merits of the successful tenderer. Further-
the contracting authority
more,
applied criteria that were not set out in advance and thus were
unknown to the candidates.

the applicant submits that

(1) OJ 2008/S 72-096229.
(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002
on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities (OJ L 248, p. 1).

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH
& Co. KG.

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘META’ for goods
in Classes 9, 11, 20 and 21 (Application No 3 081 271).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Metaform Lucchese SpA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘METAFORM’
for goods in Classes 6, 11, 20, 21 and 24 (Community trade
mark No 1 765 361), the Italian figurative mark (Trade mark
No 587 108) and the international figurative mark (Trade mark
No 603 054) also for goods in Classes 6, 11, 20, 21 and 24.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1),
there is no likelihood of confusion
between the marks at issue.

in that

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

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