Case T-152/07: Action brought on 7 May 2007 — Lange Uhren v OHIM (Figurative mark representing a watch)
Date: 2007-07-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clock and watch industry, precision engineering, trade-mark law

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/35

that

the applicants submit

In respect of the infringement which took place in the Nether-
lands,
the Commission erred in
denying them any reduction of the fine and in setting the fine
at EUR 79 750 000. In particular, the applicants suggest, first,
that the Commission misapplied the 2002 Leniency Notice in
that it failed to reduce the applicants' fine in recognition of the
fact that the applicants provided information and cooperated
during the administrative procedure. Secondly, the applicants
allege that the Commission disregarded the principle of legiti-
mate expectations and of equal treatment. Finally, the applicants
put forward that the Commission has improperly applied the
1998 Fining Guidelines both in failing to take into account the
favour, and in
attenuating circumstances in the applicants'
failing to properly acknowledge the fact that the applicants did
not contest the facts.

(1) Commission Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines

in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).

(2) OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: A figurative mark representing a
watch for goods in class 14 (registration No 2542694).

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 No 40/94, as
the mark applied for does not lack the requisite distinctive
character;

— Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94, as, due
to an error in law, the mark applied for has been held not to
have become distinctive as a result of the use which has
been made of it.

(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 7 May 2007 — Lange Uhren v OHIM
(Figurative mark representing a watch)

(Case T-152/07)

(2007/C 155/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lange Uhren GmbH (Glashütte, Germany)
sented by M. Schaeffer, Rechtsanwalt)

(repre-

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

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 15 February
2007 in Case R 1176/2005-1;

— declare that the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1) do not preclude publication of the Com-
munity trade mark applied for under No 2542694 for
goods in class 14 (‘luxury watches and chronometric instru-
ments; watchfaces for luxury watches’);

— in the alternative, declare that the Community trade mark
applied for under No 2542694 has become distinctive in
respect of the goods applied for in class 14 as a result of the
use which has been made of
in accordance with
it,
Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to

pay the costs.

Action brought on 8 May 2007 — ThyssenKrupp Liften v
Commission

(Case T-154/07)

(2007/C 155/64)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Liften BV (Krimpen aan den IJssel,
Netherlands) (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and A.C.E. Stoffer,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the

applicant;

— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2007) 512
final (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators).

In support of its application the applicant invokes the same pleas
in law as those put forward in Case T-144/07 ThyssenKrupp
Liften Ascenseurs v Commission.