ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/39

Appeal brought on 24 April 2008 by R against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 February 2008 in Case F-49/07, R v Commission

(Case T-156/08 P)

(2008/C 171/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: R (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by Y. Minatchy, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Annul the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 19 February 2008 in Case F-49/07;

— Grant the application for annulment and damages made by the applicant at first instance;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present appeal, the applicant is seeking the annulment of the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) dismissing as inadmissible the action in which he applied, first, for the annulment of his entire probationary period and all the measures produced in that connection, including the end of probationary period report, and, second, for damages by way of compensation for the loss allegedly suffered.

In support of his appeal, the applicant relies, first, on a denial of due process inasmuch as the Tribunal did not take account of certain factors and documents submitted by the applicant and, second, on an erroneous interpretation of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal and the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities. The applicant also relies on manifest errors in the assessment of the facts.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/33

Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Impala v Commission

(Case T-229/08)

(2008/C 197/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala, international association) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Crosby, J. Golding, Solicitors, and I. Wekstein, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the Commission's Decision of 3 October 2007 in Case No COMP/M.3333-Sony/BMG declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (1);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By Decision C(2004) 2815 of 19 July 2004, the Commission declared compatible with the common market the concentration by which Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America acquired joint control of the joint venture company Sony BMG combining their recorded music businesses (Case No. COMP/M.3333-Sony/BMG). By the judgment of 13 July 2006, the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission's decision (2). Following this annulment, the case was re-notified to the Commission who reassessed the concentration under the current market circumstances and by contested Decision C(2007) 4507 of 3 October 2007 authorised the merger as compatible with the common market and functioning of the EEA Agreement.

The applicant who is an international association representing independent music companies — competitors to the parties to the merger seeks the annulment of that decision. It claims that in authorising the merger the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment, and/or misapplied the law on collective dominance and/or infringed Article 253 EC by:

— failing to apply the correct test and to properly assess the existence, strengthening or creation of a collective dominant position in the physical recorded music market and market for recorded music in digital formats;

— failing to conduct a prospective analysis as to whether or not the concentration might strengthen or create a collective dominant position on the market for physical recorded music and/or the market for recorded music in digital formats, and failing to give reasons or sufficient reasons for dispensing with a prospective analysis;

— failing to conduct a proper analysis concerning the possible effects of the merger on consumer choice or cultural diversity, or to make a prospective analysis thereof; and

— in conclusion, failing to find that the merger strengthened or created a collective dominant position in the physical recorded music market and market for recorded music in digital formats.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13).

(2) Case T-464/04, Impala v. Commission, [2006] ECR II-2289, judgment on appeal, Case C-413/06 P, Bertelsmann and Sony Corporation of America v Impala.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/63

Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Coin v OHIM — Dynamiki Zoi (FITCOIN)

(Case T-249/08)

(2008/C 209/112)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Coin SpA (Mestre, Venezia, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dynamiki Zoi Anonymi Etairia (Peristeri, Greece)

Form of order sought

— Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 April 2008 in case R 1429/2007-1;

— Reject Community trade mark No 3 725 298 ‘FITCOIN’; and

— Order the other parties to pay the costs, including those of the OHIM opposition and appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FITCOIN’ for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41 — application No 3 725 298

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

Mark or sign cited: The Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 160 126 for goods in class 25; the Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 253 233 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41; the Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 240 305 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41; the Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 169 548 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41, extended to Benelux, France, Hungary, Austria and Portugal; the Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 240 286 for goods and services in class 25, extended to Benelux, France, Hungary and Austria; Community trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 109 827 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35; international trade mark ‘coin’ registration No R 381 015 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41, extended to Benelux, Germany, Spain, France, Hungary, Austria, Portugal and Slovenia.

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade marks concerned are visually and phonetically similar and the goods and services covered by the trade marks concerned are identical; infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the use of the trade mark applied for is likely to cause confusion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/46

Action brought on 12 June 2008 — Iranian Tobacco v OHIM — AD Bulgartabac (Bahman)

(Case T-223/08)

(2008/C 223/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Iranian Tobacco Company (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: M. Beckensträter, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: AD Bulgartabac Holding (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Forms of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 10 April 2008 — R 709/2007-1, notified on 15 April 2008;

— Order AD Bulgartabac Holding to pay the reimbursable costs, including those of the main proceedings and including those of the defendant;

— In the alternative, while annulling the decision of 10 April 2008 and that of 7 March 2007 — 1415C — declare that the application by AD Bulgartabac Holding of 8 November 2005 was inadmissible.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which revocation was applied for: the figurative mark ‘Bahman’ for goods in Class 34 (Community trade mark No 427 336).

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Iranian Tobacco Company.

Applicant in the revocation proceedings: AD Bulgartabac Holding.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Decision declaring the Community trade mark concerned to be revoked.

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

Pleas in law: The admissibility requirements concerning the application by AD Bulgartabac Holding which OHIM is obliged to consider of its own motion were not taken into account, contrary to Community law, Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) and other principles of procedure.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 247/19

Action brought on 23 July 2008 — CPS Color Group v OHIM — Fema Farben und Putze (TEMACOLOR)

(Case T-295/08)

(2008/C 247/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CPS Color Group Oy (Vantaa, Finland) (represented by: P. Hagman, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fema Farben und Putze GmbH (Ettlingen, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 808/2007-1; and

— Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TEMACOLOR’ for goods in class 2

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 2 104 061 of the word mark ‘FEMA-Color’ for goods in class 2; international trade mark registration No 691 406 of the word mark ‘FEMA-Color’ for goods in class 2

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in law in determining that the conflicting trade marks are confusingly similar, in breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/16

Action brought on 21 July 2008 — People's Mojahedin of Iran v Council

(Case T-284/08)

(2008/C 236/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (Auvers sur Oise, France) (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer, lawyer and D. Vaughan, QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— To annul Decision 2008/583/EC of the Council insofar as it applies to the applicant;

— To order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 230 EC, partial annulment and in so far as it concerns the applicant, of Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 (1) (‘the contested decision’) implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled because, in so far as it relates to the inclusion of the applicant on the list of terrorist organisations, there was no relevant decision at the time from a competent national authority sufficient to form any justification for the decision. In addition, the applicant claims that the decision should be annulled because while it was said to be based on ‘new information’ and on a decision from a competent authority other than that of the United Kingdom, the evidence on which the Council relied was not disclosed to the applicant before adopting the decision. Further, the applicant claims that no justification was given as to why such information was to be treated as new, or relevant.

The applicant puts forward that the contested decision was taken without any proper evaluation of the new information and on whether that constituted concrete and reliable evidence upon which the Council was entitled to act, in order to prove that the applicant was engaged in terrorism.

Furthermore, the applicant contends that the contested decision was adopted in violation of the applicant's right to be heard and its fundamental rights. The applicant submits, finally, that the contested decision was adopted in circumstances which amounted to an abuse or misuse of procedures and/or powers.

(1) OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/16

Action brought on 11 August 2008 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — Grupo Corporativo Teype (Solfrutta)

(Case T-331/08)

(2008/C 260/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Bognár and M. Kinkeldey, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Corporativo Teype, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 May 2008 in case R 1679/2007-2; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Solfrutta’ for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 1 687 722 of the word mark ‘FRUTISOL’ for goods in class 32; Spanish trade mark registration No 2 018 327 of the word mark ‘FRUTISOL’ for goods in class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in not taking into account the alleged weak distinctiveness of the earlier trade marks. Likewise, when assessing only the similarity of the single elements of the trade marks concerned, the Board of Appeal did not sufficiently take into account that the most relevant aspect in the framework of such assessment is the overall impression conveyed by the trade marks concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 247/18

Action brought on 25 July 2008 — Cadila Healthcare v OHIM — Novartis (ZYDUS)

(Case T-288/08)

(2008/C 247/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cadila Healthcare Ltd (Ahmedabad, India) (represented by: S. Bailey, A. Juaristi and F. Potin, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 1092/2007-2; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ZYDUS’ for goods in classes 3, 5 and 10 — application No 3 277 662

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 2 356 964 of the mark ‘ZIMBUS’ for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Uphold the opposition with respect to part of the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in its decision that there was a likelihood of confusion between the earlier trade mark and the trade mark applied for, in breach of general principles of trade mark law and, in particular, Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/36

Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Cimino v Commission

(Case T-321/08)

(2008/C 272/69)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Riccardo Cimino (Castelsardo, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/27

Action brought on 2 July 2008 — Global Digital Disc v Commission

(Case T-259/08)

(2008/C 272/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Global Digital Disc GmbH & Co. KG (Ottendorf-Okrilla, Germany) (represented by: D. Ehle, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

— order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 8 025 495,25 in damages plus 8 % interest from 1 January 2008 onwards;

— declare that the defendant is under an obligation to compensate the applicant for damage incurred after 1 January 2008 and in the future, plus interest;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks compensation for damage it incurred because the Commission failed to impose provisional and definite anti-dumping duties on imports of recordable compact discs (‘CD-R’) from the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Malaysia and terminated the anti-dumping proceedings concerning those imports by decision of 3 November 2006 (1).

The applicant is a company based in Germany which produces CD-Rs and DVD-Rs.

In its application, the applicant claims that the defendant's administrative and normative conduct during, prior to and following the end of the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of CD-Rs from the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Malaysia infringed — repeatedly and in a manner that was sufficiently serious — important provisions in anti-dumping law which are intended to confer rights on the applicant. Further, the applicant claims that those sufficiently serious infringements of the law on the part of the Commission caused the applicant significant damage. Finally, the applicant claims that there is a direct causal link between those serious infringements of the law and the damage that has already been caused and the damage still to be expected.

(1) Commission Decision of 3 November 2006 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of recordable compact discs (CD+/-R) originating in the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Malaysia (OJ 2006 L 305, p. 15).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/45

Action brought on 26 August 2008 — Uralita v Commission

(Case T-349/08)

(2008/C 285/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Uralita, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Forrester, QC, K. Struckmann, P. Lindfelt, J. Garcia-Nieto Esteva, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission decision of 11 June 2008 — Case COMP/F/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate as far as it relates to Uralita; and

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application the applicant seeks partial annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate) relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) EEA in so far as it finds that the applicant must be held jointly and severally liable for infringement allegedly committed by Aragonesas, in which the applicant held shares, during the period 16 December 1996 through 9 February 2000.

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

First, it submits that the Commission erred in law by imputing the conduct of Aragonesas to Uralita by way of parent-subsidiary liability.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in imputing the conduct of Aragonesas to Uralita by way of succession.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/56

Action brought on 29 September 2008 — SOZA v Commission

(Case T-413/08)

(2008/C 301/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Slovenský ochranný Zväz Autorský pre práva k hudobným dielam (SOZA) (Bratislava, Slovak Republic) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC); and

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application the applicant seeks partial annulment of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) and in particular, of its Article 3, determining that the EEA CISAC (1) members engaged in a concerted practice in violation of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA by coordinating the territorial delineations of the reciprocal representation mandates granted to one another in a way which limits a licence to the domestic territory of each collecting society.

In support of its claims the applicant submits that:

(i) the inclusion of territorial delineations in its reciprocal representation agreements is not the result of a concerted practice, and

(ii) in the alternative, if there were a concerted practice on territorial delineations, it would not be restrictive of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC.

On the basis of its first plea, the applicant submits that the Commission made an error of assessment and infringed Article 81 EC as well as Article 253 EC by determining that the parallel territorial delineation included in the reciprocal representation agreements concluded by the applicant and the other EEA CISAC members is the result of a concerted practice, whereas the decision failed to provide any evidence of such a concerted practice.

On the basis of its second plea, the applicant contends that the alleged concerted practice on territorial delineations is not illegal because it concerns a form of competition that is not worthy of protection. Moreover, the applicant claims that, even if the alleged practice should be considered to restrict competition, it does not infringe Article 81(1) EC because it is necessary and proportionate to a legitimate objective.

(1) International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers.