4.8.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 183/39

Action brought on 11 June 2007 — RSA Security Ireland v The applicant claims that the decision as communicated in the Commission first instance to the and hence to the applicant itself failed to classify the applicant's product by refer- ence to its objective characteristics and qualities and determined (Case T-210/07) the classification in a manner which constitutes a funda- mental error of law. (2007/C 183/74)

The applicant further submits that the correct tariff classification Language of the case: English of the product by reference to its essential characteristics should be that of a unit of an automatic data processing machine pursuant to Chapter 8471 of the Community Code (1) in that the product complies with the requirements of Note 5(B) of Chapter 8471 for such classification, or is in itself an auto- Parties matic data processing machine.

Applicant: RSA Security Ireland Ltd (Shannon, Ireland) (repre- sented by: S. Daly, Solicitor and B. Conway, Barrister) In the alternative, the applicant submits that the correct tariff classification of the product by reference to its objective charac- teristics is as a calculating machine or device pursuant to Defendant: Commission of the European Communities Chapter 8470 of the Community Customs Code.

Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission's actions in Form of order sought dealing with its request for binding tariff information of the product on the basis of the product's attributes as a unit of an — automatic data processing machine amount to a lack of due to annul the decision of the Commission as conveyed to the process and abuse of power. applicant by the Revenue Commissioners on 30 March 2007 as it fails to classify the applicant's product for tariff classification purposes under the Combined Nomenclature by reference to the objective characteristics and qualities of (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establi- the product; shing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992, L 302, p. 1).

— to declare that the customs classification of the product is to be determined pursuant to the intrinsic characteristic of the product which is that it is in the nature of an automatic data processing machine and so falls to be classified within the terms of Chapter 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature; or, in the alternative Action brought on 13 June 2007 — AWWW v European — to declare that the product is to be classified by reference to Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working its essential characteristic as a calculating machine or device Conditions pursuant to Chapter 8470 of the Combined Nomenclature;

— to declare that in accordance with the accepted classification (Case T-211/07) rules of goods for Community customs purposes that the essential characteristic of the product is not that of a security device or a means of access to records whether stored on an (2007/C 183/75) automatic data processing machine or otherwise;

— to order the repayment to the applicant of such customs Language of the case: English as has been paid by the applicant in respect of the importation of the product into the Community since the coming into force of the Commission's decision together with the repayment of interest to the applicant.

Parties Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application the applicant seeks annulment of a Applicant: AWWW GmbH ArbeitsWelt — Working World Commission decision of which the applicant was informed by e- (Göttingen, Germany) (represented by: B. Schreier, M. Kappuhne, mail correspondence served on it on 30 March 2007 by the lawyers) Revenue Commissioners, in response to an application for binding tariff information submitted by the applicant in respect of a security device connectible to an automatic data processing Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living machine referred to as the ‘SID 800 Product’. and Working Conditions C 183/40EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.8.2007

Form of order sought — an order that the Community mark application No 2 939 072 be refused in its entirety; — the lifting of procurement procedure: fast track restricted — tender No 2007/S 13-014125 published in the OJ S 13 on an order that the defendant pays the applicant its costs 19 January 2007 relating to information and analysis on incurred before the Board of Appeal and the Court of First quality of work and employments, industrial relations and Instance. restructuring covering the European level of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Barbara Becker Pleas in law and main arguments Community trade mark concerned: The Community work mark The applicant claims that the method of execution of the above ‘Barbara Becker’ for goods in Class 9 — application mentioned procurement procedure was not conducted fairly by No 2 939 072 the defendant. Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant submits, first, that the grounds for rejecting its Harman International Industries, Inc bid are not sufficiently motivated. In particular, the extracts of the evaluation sheet which have been forwarded to the applicant ‘ ’ allegedly fail to explain adequately why the contract was Mark or sign cited: The Community word marks BECKER and ‘ ’ awarded to another tenderer. BECKER ONLINE PRO for goods in Class 9

Secondly, the applicant further submits that the defendant's Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its letter dated 15 May 2007 contains formal defects since the entirety annex B to the evaluation report was allegedly not signed by persons entrusted with the tenders' assessment. Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and rejected the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation 40/94 (‘CTMR’).

The applicant claims that the Board erred in its application of Action brought on 15 June 2007 — Harman International Article 8(1)(b) CTMR in finding that there was no conceptual Industries v OHIM — Becker (Barbara Becker) similarity between the applicant's mark ‘BECKER’ and the sign applied for by ‘Barbara Becker’, and hence no likelihood of confusion. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Board (Case T-212/07) erred in law in its application of Article 8(5) CTMR in finding that there was no link between the sign applied for by ‘Barbara (2007/C 183/76) Becker’ and the Community trade mark of its own.

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties Action brought on 22 June 2007 — Donnici v Parliament Applicant: Harman International Industries, Inc. (Northridge, USA) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, Barrister) (Case T-215/07)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (2007/C 183/77) (Trade Marks and Designs)

Language of the case: Italian Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Barbara Becker (Miami, USA)

Form of order sought Parties

— Annulment of paragraph 1 of the First Board of Appeal's Applicant: Beniamino Donnici (represented by: M. Sanino, G. decision of 7 March 2007 (Case R 502/2006-1), by which Roberti, I. Perego and P. Salvatore, lawyers) the decision of the Opposition Division of 15 February 2005 was annulled; Defendant: European Parliament