Case T-490/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Notartel v OHIM — SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen (R.U.N.)
Date: 2007-12-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), information technology industry, trade-mark law

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/45

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

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Notartel v OHIM
— SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen (R.U.N.)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Net
Insight AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

Form of order sought

— The decision of

the Second Board of Appeal dated
20 September 2007 in Case R 1428/2006-2 shall be
annulled and the rejection of the application for all services
in classes 37 and 42 and the rejected services in class 35 be
overturned and the application be allowed to proceed in
respect of all of the services for which the application was
published.

— The Office and other parties shall bear their own costs and

pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Insight’ for
in classes 35, 36, 37 and 42 — application
services
No 3 309 002

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Net
Insight AB

Mark or sign cited: The Community and national word mark
‘NET INSIGHT’ for goods and services in classes 9, 37 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld
and partially rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: According to the applicant, the Board of Appeal
wrongly identified the dominant and distinctive elements of the
earlier mark and did not give consideration to all the relevant
factors in assessing the similarity of the relevant goods and
services. Furthermore, the Board of Appeal failed to consider all
the relevant factors in relation to the global appreciation test
when determining the likelihood of confusion between the
conflicting marks.

(Case T-490/07)

(2008/C 64/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Notartel SpA — (Notaries'
information technology
company) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Bosshard and M.
Balestriero, avvocati)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Primarily, annul,

in part, the decision of OHIM's Fourth
Board of Appeal of 22 October 2007 in Case R 1267/
2006-4, in so far as it upheld the opposition;

— Alternatively, annul, in part, the decision of OHIM's Fourth
Board of Appeal of 22 October 2007 in Case R 1267/
2006-4, in so far as it upheld the opposition in respect of
the mark sought for Class 38;

— In any event, reject any possible future contrary application
or claim, by way of confirming the decision in so far as it is
not impugned in this case;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘R.U.N.’ (Community
trade mark application No 1,069,863 for services in Classes 35,
38 and 42, as regards these proceedings).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH.

C 64/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2008

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word
mark ‘ran’, for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and
42.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed in part, in respect
of some services in Classes 38 and 42.

Pleas in law: The contested decision is vitiated by a logical
contradiction which consists in enunciating a series of correct
legal principles stated to be mandatory in the assessment of the
similarity between signs and goods/services for the purposes of
establishing the ground of refusal under the first part of Article
73 of the Community trade mark regulation, whilst however
applying different criteria in evaluating the actual case in point.
Such logical contradiction therefore gives rise either to an error
of law, by the application of legal principles different to those
(correct) ones stated in the legal basis of the decision, or to
inconsistency and insufficiency in the reasoning.

Action brought on 27 December 2007 — CB v
Commission

(Case T-491/07)

(2008/C 64/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Groupement des Cartes Bancaires (CB) GIE (Paris,
France) (represented by: A. Georges, J. Ruiz Calzado, É. Barbier
de La Serre, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission
Decision C(2007) 5060 final of 17 October 2007 relating to a
proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/D1/38606 —
GROUPEMENT DES CARTES BANCAIRES ‘CB’), concerning
tariff measures for membership of the Groupement applicable
to new members and the ‘sleeper member fee’ applicable to
members of the Groupement which have not developed signifi-
cant business in banking cards since becoming members.

In support of its application, the applicant puts forward six
pleas in law.

The first plea alleges infringement of Article 81 EC, the principle
of equal treatment and a failure to state reasons on account of
alleged defects in the method of analysis of the measures and
the markets adopted by the Commission, in that it failed to take
account of either the overall context, all the relevant informa-
tion, or the specific circumstances in which they were adopted
and in which their effects are felt.

Second, the applicant puts forward a plea alleging infringement
of Article 81(1) EC on account of errors of law, fact and assess-
ment that the Commission made during the examination of the
purpose of the measures which were notified to it. The applicant
takes the view that the Commission has failed to comply with
the obligation to examine the purpose of a decision by an asso-
that
ciation of undertakings and has not established that
purpose is anticompetitive.

By the third plea, the applicant claims that the contested deci-
sion infringes Article 81(1) EC also because of errors of law,
fact and assessment
the Commission made during the
examination of the effect of the measures notified to it.

that

In the alternative, the applicant argues that the Commission
infringed Article 81(3) EC in the examination of the applic-
ability of the four conditions required in order to obtain an
exemption.

The fifth plea relied on by the applicant alleges infringement of
the principle of sound administration resulting from supposed
omissions, contradictions and distortions of a number of its
arguments in the contested decision.

Form of order sought

The final plea alleges infringement of the principles of propor-
tionality and legal certainty.

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.