Case T-391/07: Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Alber v OHIM (part of hand grip)
Date: 2007-12-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), agricultural implement, trade-mark law

22.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/41

Action brought on 4 October 2007 — FIFA v Commission

(Case T-385/07)

(2007/C 315/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fédération Internationale de Football Association
(FIFA) (represented by: R. Denton, E. Batchelor and F. Young,
Solicitors)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— The annulment of the decision,

in particular Articles 1-2

thereof; and

— an order that the Commission pay its own costs and FIFA's

costs in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 3a of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1) a Member
State may draw up a list of sporting or other events that are
considered to be events of ‘major importance to society’. The
events on the list cannot be the subject of exclusive broadcasting
rights which prevent a substantial proportion of the public in
that Member State from watching the event via live coverage or
deferred coverage on free television.

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision
2007/479/EC of 25 June 2007 (2) by which the Commission
to
declared that
Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC was compatible
with Community law.

the list drawn up by Belgium pursuant

restricts

its application the applicant submits that the
In support of
the freedom to provide services by
Belgian list
preventing the applicant
from licensing foreign broadcasters
with live exclusive FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights in
respect of the Belgian market and that the listing of all FIFA
is not justified,
World Cup matches, regardless of popularity,
proportionate or necessary.

Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the Belgian list restricts
freedom of establishment by preventing the applicant
from
licensing new entrants who wish to use premium sports broad-
casting to establish themselves on the Belgian market.

Moreover, the applicant contends that the Belgian list infringes
the applicant's property rights by depriving it of exclusivity in
respect of its broadcasting rights, recognised according to the
applicant by EC law to be the essence of intellectual property
protection.

Finally, the applicant argues that contrary to Article 3a(1) of
Council Directive 89/552/EEC the Belgian list was not drawn up
in a clear and transparent manner.

(1) Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordina-
tion of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Adminis-
trative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television
broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23).

(2) Commission Decision 2007/479/EC of 25 June 2007 on the
compatibility with Community law of measures taken by Belgium
pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the
coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or
administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of
television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 180, p. 24).

Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Alber v OHIM
(part of hand grip)

(Case T-391/07)

(2007/C 315/78)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Alfons Alber
Schneller, lawyer)

(Vöran,

Italy)

(represented by: S.

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

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 August 2007
and the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market of 16 January 2007 in so far as those deci-
sions
trade mark
registration of Community
No 4 396 727 in respect of the goods ‘manually operated
tools for agricultural, horticultural and forestry activities,
including garden shears, tree pruning shears, hedge clippers;
manually operated secateurs …’;

reject

— hold oral proceedings before the Court of First Instance;

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

— in the alternative, remit the case to the Office for Harmoni-

sation in the Internal Market;

C 315/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.12.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: three-dimensional trade mark
‘Part of hand grip’ in respect of goods in Classes 6 and 8 (appli-
cation No 4 396 727)

The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those
in Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and Commission.

Decision of the Examiner: refusal in part of the application.

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

Pleas in law: Infringement of the principle laid down in the first
sentence of Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) that the
Office examines the facts of its own motion and infringement
of Article 7 of that regulation. In the alternative, failure to the
state reasons on which a decision is based pursuant to the first
sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94.

Action brought on 30 October 2007 — France Télécom v
OHIM (UNIQUE)

(Case T-396/07)

(2007/C 315/80)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Language in which the case was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: France Télécom (Paris, France)
Potot, lawyer)

(represented by B.

Action brought on 25 October 2007 — Algodonera del Sur
v Council and Commission

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

(Case T-394/07)

(2007/C 315/79)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Algodonera del Sur, S.A. (Lebrija, Spain) (represented
by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

Form of order sought

— declare that the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of

OHIM of 3 September 2007 is invalid;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark UNIQUE for goods
and services in Classes 9, 35 and 38 (application No 5 312 392)

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of registration

Defendant: Council of the European Union and Commission of
the European Communities

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Form of order sought

— to uphold the present action for damages,

in accordance
with Article 288 EC, and declare the applicant is entitled to
be financially compensated by the Council and the Commis-
sion jointly and severally in the sum total of one million
twenty-nine thousand eight hundred and twenty-five euros
(EUR 1 029 825); and

— to order the defendant institutions to pay the costs.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of
Regulation No 40/94 of the Council (1)
in the
applicant's view and contrary to what is stated in the contested
decision, the word ‘UNIQUE’
is not devoid of any distinctive
character.

inasmuch as,

(1) Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community

trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).