Case C-51/09 P: Appeal brought on 3 February 2009 by Barbara Becker against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 2 December2008 in Case T-212/07 Harman International Industries, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2009-02-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, appeal, satellite navigation, software, trade-mark law

C 82/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.4.2009

Pleas in law and main arguments

Failure to transpose article 3 of the directive

The Commission submits that Section 173 of the Planning and
Development Regulations 2000, which requires planning autho-
rities to have regard to the environmental
impact statement
(EIS) and information coming from consultees, relates to the
duty under art. 8 of the directive to take into consideration
information gathered pursuant to arts. 5, 6 and 7 of the direc-
tive. In the Commission's view Section 173 does not correspond
to the wider duty under art. 3 of the directive to ensure that an
environmental impact assessment (EIA) identifies, describes and
assesses all the matters referred to in that provision.

As for Articles 94, 108 and 111 and Schedule 6 of the Planning
and Development Regulations 2001, the Commission makes
the following observations. Art. 94 read with Schedule 6.2(b)
sets out the information that an EIS must contain. This is a
reference to the information that the developer must provide
pursuant to art. 5 of the directive; it is therefore to be distin-
guished from the EIA which is the overall assessment process.
Arts. 108 and 111 require planning authorities to consider the
adequacy of an EIS. The Commission considers that these provi-
sions relate to Art. 5 of the directive but are not a substitute for
a transposition of art. 3 of the directive. The information to be
provided by a developer is only one part of an EIA and provi-
sions concerning such information are not a substitute for the
obligation set out in art. 3.

the judgment of

Appeal brought on 3 February 2009 by Barbara Becker
against
Instance
(First Chamber) delivered on 2 December2008 in Case
T-212/07 Harman International Industries, Inc. v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs)

the Court of First

(Case C-51/09 P)

(2009/C 82/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Barbara Becker (represented by: P. Baronikians, A.
Hofstetter, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Harman International Industries,
Inc., Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs)

Failure to require proper coordination between authorities

Form of order sought

Although the Commission has no objection in principle to
multi-stage decision-making or to decision-making responsi-
bility for the same project being divided between different deci-
it does have concerns relating to the precise
sion-makers,
manner
in which duties on different decision-makers are
framed. In the Commission's view Irish legislation contains no
obligation on decision-makers to coordinate with each other
effectively and is, therefore, contrary to articles 2, 3 and 4 of
the directive.

Failure to apply the directive to demolition works

The Commission takes the view that, where the other conditions
set out in the directive are fulfilled, an EIA must be carried out
for demolition works. Ireland purported to exempt nearly all
demolition works by the Planning and Development Regulations
2001 (Schedule 2, part
In the Commission's
submission, this is plainly at variance with the directive.

I, Class 50).

(1) OJ L 175, p. 40.

The appellant claims that the Court should order:

— annulment of § 1 of the Court of First Instance's decision of
2 December 2008 (Case T-212/07), by which the decision of
the First Board of Appeal of 7 March 2007 (Case
R-502/2006-1) was annulled;

— annulment of § 3 of the Court of First Instance's decision of

2 December 2008;

— order that the defendant pays the appellant's costs incurred

in the entire proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in
finding that there was similarity between the trademark ‘Barbara
Becker’ applied for by the appellant and the defendant's mark
‘BECKER’, and therefore misapplied article 8(1)(b) CTMR in
concluding that there was likelihood of confusion.