Case T-445/07: Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Behring & Söhne v Commission
Date: 2007-12-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for annulment (EU), fine, haberdashery, price agreement, restrictive trade practice

C 37/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.2.2008

Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Behring & Söhne
v Commission

(Case T-445/07)

(2008/C 37/46)

Language of the case: German

Lastly, the applicant claims that the calculation of the fine is
factually incorrect. In that regard, it alleges in particular that the
findings of the defendant, both as to the length of the purported
infringement by the applicant, and as to the seriousness of the
infringement, are incorrect and that the amount of the fine is
disproportionate.

Parties

Applicant: Behring & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (Wuppertal,
Germany)
(represented by: P. Niggemann and K. Gaßner,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Royal Appliance
International v OHIM — BSH Bosch und Siemens
Hausgeräte (Centrixx)

(Case T-446/07)

(2008/C 37/47)

Form of order sought

Language in which the application was lodged: German

— the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4257 final
of 19 September 2007 (COMP/E-1/39.168 — Haberdashery:
fasteners);

Parties

— in the alternative, the reduction of the fine imposed on the
applicant in the contested decision to a symbolic penalty or
to an amount that is in any event appropriate;

— that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs.

Applicant: Royal Appliance
International GmbH (Hilden,
Germany) (represented by: K.-J. Michaeli and M. Schork, lawyers)

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany)

The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2007) 4257
final of 19 September 2007 in Case COMP/E-1/39.168 —
Haberdashery: fasteners. In the contested decision, a fine was
imposed on the applicant and other undertakings for infringe-
ment of Article 81 EC. In the Commission's view, the applicant
participated in the coordination of price increases, together with
the exchange of confidential information as to prices and the
implementation of price increases on the markets for ‘other
fasteners’ and application machines.

Form of order sought

— To annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of

OHIM of 3 October 2007 in Case R 572/2006-4;

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

those of the proceedings.

The applicant relies on four pleas in law in support of its claim.

Pleas in law and main arguments

It submits, first, that the contested decision infringes its right to
a fair hearing, since it had no opportunity to comment on a
series of meetings held in relation to the so-called ‘Basle group’
and the ‘Wuppertal group’, on which the Commission based its
allegations relating to the coordination of price increases and
the exchange of confidential information as to prices and the
implementation of price increases.

Secondly,
it claims that the alleged infringements of the law
relating to cartels have ceased, since the applicant ended its
participation in the ‘Basle group’ and the ‘Wuppertal group’ as
early as the beginning of 1997.

The applicant also maintains that there was no infringement of
Article 81 EC, since the Commission has failed to adduce the
requisite proof of the applicant's participation in any arrange-
ments.

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Centrixx’ for
goods in Class 7 (application No 3 016 227).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BSH
Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘sensixx’
for goods in Class 7 (No 30 244 090).

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the
Opposition Division and refusal of the application for registra-
tion of the mark.