Case C-320/07 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2007 by Antartica Srl against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 May 2007 in Case T-47/06: Antartica Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs)
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), appeal, trade-mark law

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/27

formerly
Appeal brought on 11 July 2007 by 3F,
Specialarbejderforbundet
the
order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,
Extended Composition) delivered on 23.4.2007 in Case
i Danmark (SID) v
T-30/03: Specialarbejderforbundet

i Danmark (SID) against

Commission of the European Communities

Appeal brought on 11 July 2007 by Antartica Srl against
the judgment of
Instance (Fourth
the Court of First
Chamber) delivered on 10 May 2007 in Case T-47/06:
Antartica Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade marks and Designs)

(Case C-319/07 P)

(2007/C 211/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

i Danmark
(represented by: A. Bentley, Barrister and A. Worsøe,

formerly Specialarbejderforbundet

Appellant: 3F,
(SID)
advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of Norway

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 23 April
2007 in Case T-30/03, Specialarbejderforbundet i Dan mark v
Commission of the European Communities; and

(Case C-320/07 P)

(2007/C 211/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Antartica Srl (represented by: E. Racca, avvocati and
A. Fusillo, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), The Nasdaq Stock
Market, Inc.

Form of order sought

The appellant claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision by the Second Board of Appeal

— order the defendant to pay costs

— declare the appellant's application in Case T-30/03 admis-

Pleas in law and main arguments

sible; and

— order that

the Applicant's costs of bringing the present

appeal be borne by the Commission in any event.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that
annulled on the following grounds:

the contested order should be

1. The Court of First Instance erred in law by relying on Case
C-67/96, Albany to hold that the appellant could not rely on
its own competitive position in the negotiation of collective
agreements in order to establish that
it was individually
concerned.

2. The Court of First Instance erred in law by finding that the
appellant could not rely on social aspects to establish that it
was individually concerned.

3. The Court of First Instance misapplied the Plaumann and
ARE case-law by finding that
the appellant cannot be
regarded as individually concerned merely because the aid in
question is passed to the recipients by means of a reduction
in the wage claims of seafarers benefiting from the income
tax exemption.

4. The Court of First Instance misapplied the Van der Kooy and
CIRFS case-law by finding that the appellant's own interest as
a negotiator were not affected by fiscal measures.

The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance's interpre-
tation of Article 8 (5) of Regulation 40/94 (1) is inconsistent
with the current definition of trademark notoriety subsequent
to case C-372/97 General Motors.

(1) OJ L 11, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat,
Belgium,
lodged on 12 July 2007 — Coditel Brabant v
1. Commune d'Uccle, 2. Société Intercommunale pour la
Diffusion de la Télévision (BRUTELE), 3. Région de
Bruxelles-Capitale

(Case C-324/07)

(2007/C 211/51)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat