Case T-13/09: Action brought on 15 January 2009 — Storck v OHIM (Mouse-shaped chocolate)
Date: 2009-01-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), confectionery product, trade-mark law

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/47

Action brought on 15 January 2009 — Storck v OHIM
(Mouse-shaped chocolate)

Form of order sought

(Case T-13/09)

(2009/C 69/103)

— set aside the contested decision of the European Parliament
of 18 November 2008, which was notified to the applicant
on 30 November 2008, by which the applicant's parliamen-
tary immunity was waived;

Language of the case: German

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Parties

Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by
P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Internal Market of

for Harmonisation in the

Office
12 November 2008 (R 185/2006-4); and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community
trade mark concerned: a three-dimensional mark,
which represents a mouse made out of chocolate, for goods in
Class 30 (Application No 4 490 447).

Decision of the Examiner: Application refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1), in that the trade mark applied for has the neces-
sary distinctive character.

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

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

Action brought on 16 January 2009 — Vanhecke v
Parliament

(Case T-14/09)

(2009/C 69/104)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Frank Vanhecke (Bruges, Belgium) (represented by: R.
Tournicourt and B. Siffert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Pleas in law and main arguments

By letter addressed to the President of the European Parliament,
the Belgian Minister for Justice requested that the applicant's
parliamentary immunity be waived. According to the applicant,
this request was submitted in response to an application made
by the public prosecutor's office in the town of Dendermonde,
which sought to prosecute the applicant on the basis of the
content of an article published in a local party newspaper in the
town of Sint-Niklaas of which the applicant was the responsible
publisher.

The European Parliament subsequently decided to waive the
applicant's parliamentary immunity.

the European Communities,

In support of his application, the applicant first of all submits
that, in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privi-
leges and Immunities of
the
members of the European Parliament enjoy, within their own
respective territories, the immunities which are conferred on
members of national parliaments in their respective countries.
From this it follows, according to the applicant, that an applica-
tion to have the immunity of a member of the European Parlia-
ment waived may be made only by the body which is
authorised under national law to seek revocation of the immu-
nity of a member of the national parliament. Consequently, an
application for the institution of the procedure for lifting parlia-
mentary immunity ought to be addressed to the Minister for
Justice by the central public prosecutor's office, as this exists at
the level of the Hof van beroep (Court of Appeal), and not, as
has happened in the present case, by a local public prosecutor's
office organised at local district level.

submits

applicant

The second plea in law concerns the taking of the decision
within the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parlia-
the
ment. The
Committee who took the decision on the request that the appli-
cant's parliamentary immunity be waived either had to be
present at the hearing when the applicant set out his views or
had to have a true and accurate report available to them which
set out the line of argument followed. The applicant claims that
this was not the case here.

the members of

that

Third, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of confi-
dentiality and the obligation of secrecy. He submits in this
regard that, before the final vote was taken by the Committee
on Legal Affairs, the report of the committee chairperson was
already available to the press.

Fourth, the applicant alleges that there has been a breach of
Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament
by reason of the fact that any debate in the plenary session was
made impossible.

Fifth, the applicant alleges deficient reasoning inasmuch as the
contested decision confines itself to referring to the report of
the Committee on Legal Affairs.