Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 35/12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.2.2004

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

By the contested decision the Commission decided that
Germany’s measure to promote the use of insulating materials
produced from renewable raw materials is to be considered
compatible with the EC Treaty. The Commission reached this
decision on the basis that, although the measure constitutes
aid, it is, under Article 87(3)(c) EC, compatible with the EC
Treaty since the promoted insulating materials produced from
renewable raw materials clearly have advantages for the
environment over ‘traditional’ insulating materials.

The applicant submits that the decision infringes essential
procedural requirements. The Commission should have
initiated the preliminary examination procedure in accordance
with Article 88(2) EC and Article 4(4) of the regulation on
State aid procedure, since it encountered objectively serious
difficulties in assessing the measure.

Furthermore, the decision infringes Article 87 EC. The Commission’s decision that the measure is compatible with the
common market under Article 87(3)(c) EC because of clear
advantages for the environment was based upon insufficient
findings of fact.

Finally the applicant claims that the decision unjustifiably
disadvantages those insulating materials designated by the
Commission as ‘traditional’, especially mineral-based insulating
materials, but also insulating materials produced from renewable raw materials which do not carry the quality mark
‘natureplus’. The decision thus infringes the principles of
proportionality and non-discrimination and therefore infringes
fundamental principles of Community law.

**Action brought on 17 November 2003 by Peek & Clop-**
**penburg KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**

**(Case T-379/03)**

(2004/C 35/19)

_(Language of the case: German)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
17 November 2003 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf
(Germany), represented by U. Hildebrandt, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation of 27 August 2003 in Case
R 105/2002-4;

—
order the Office to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Community trade mark Word mark ‘Cloppenburg’ —
sought: Application No 1920685 in
respect of Class 35 — retail trade
services.

Decision contested Examiner’s refusal to register.
before the Board of
Appeal:

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the applicant’s
Appeal: appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of
Regulation No 40/94 ( [1] ).

( [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 18 November 2003 by Miles Hand-**
**elsgesellschaft International mbH against the Office for**
**Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and**
**Designs)**

**(Case T-385/03)**

(2004/C 35/20)

_(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)_
_of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was_
_submitted: German)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
18 November 2003 by Miles Handelsgesellschaft International
mbH, Norderstedt (Germany), represented by A. Deutsch,
lawyer. Biker Miles Motorrad Handels- und Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH, Berlin, was also a party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal.

7.2.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 35/13

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision of the Second Board of
Appeal of 9 September 2003 (Case R 174/2002-2);

—
order the Office to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Com- Biker Miles Motorrad Handelsmunity trade mark: und Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH

Community trade mark Coloured word/figurative mark
sought: ‘BIKER MILES’ for goods in Classes 9 (replacement parts and
accessories for two-wheeled
vehicles etc.), 12 (motorcycles
etc.) and 25 (equipment and clothing for the riders of two-wheeled
vehicles etc.) — Application
No 1 237 734.

Proprietor of mark or The applicant
sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in The Community trade mark ‘MILopposition. ES’ for goods in Class 25.

Decision of the Oppo- Refusal to register the mark
sition Division: sought.

Decision of the Board of The appeal was granted and the
Appeal: opposition rejected.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation No 40/94 ( [1] ).

( [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 24 November 2003 by Deutsche**
**Telekom AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-386/03)**

(2004/C 35/21)

_(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)_
_of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was_
_submitted: German)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the

Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
24 November 2003 by Deutsche Telekom AG, Bonn (Germany), represented by D. Marschollek, lawyer. Client Logic
GmbH & Co. KG, Oberhausen (Germany), was also a party to
the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
7 January 2003, notified on 26 September 2003, (Case
R 80/2001-4);

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Com- The applicant.
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark Word mark ‘DTel’ for goods and
sought: services in Classes 9 (electric
apparatus etc.), 37 (construction
etc.), 38 (telecommunications
etc.) and 42 (computer programming services etc.) — Application
No 1 176 639.

Proprietor of mark or Client Logic GmbH & Co. KG.
sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in The national word mark ‘TETEL’
opposition. for goods and services in Classes 9, 37, 38 and 42.

Decision of the Oppo- Rejection of the opposition.
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of Partial refusal of the application
Appeal: to register, in respect of goods
and services in Class 38. Dismissal
of the remainder of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and
(b) of Regulation No 40/94 ( [1] ).

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).