Case T-66/08: Action brought on 5 February 2008 — British Sky Broadcasting Group v OHIM — Vortex (SKY)
Date: 2008-02-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), advertising, leisure, telecommunications, trade-mark law

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/21

Re:

Action brought on 5 February 2008 — British Sky
Broadcasting Group v OHIM — Vortex (SKY)

Application for suspension of
the operation of Commission
Decision 2007/628/EC of 19 September 2007 concerning the
non-inclusion of methomyl
in Annex I to Council Directive
91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant
protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 255,
p. 40), until delivery of the judgment in the main proceedings

(Case T-66/08)

(2008/C 116/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Operative part of the order

Parties

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.

Applicant: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United
Kingdom) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vortex SA
(Paris, France)

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of
14 March 2008 — Buczek Automotive v Commission

Form of order sought

(Case T-1/08 R)

— Order, on the basis that

the First Board of Appeal has
infringed Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and/or rules of
law relating to its application, that:

(Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation
of a measure — Admissibility — No urgency)

(2008/C 116/38)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

(Sosnowiec, Poland)
Applicant: Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o.
(represented initially by: T. Gackowski and subsequently by
D. Szlachetko-Reiter, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: K. Gross, M. Kaduczak and A. Stobiecka-Kuik,
Agents)

Re:

— in the decision of the First Board of Appeal, while the
ultimate conclusion of
to
reject the opposition should not be disturbed, that part
of the contested decision (in particular paragraphs 18
and 19 thereof) which reject the applicant's arguments
relating to the Agreement, should be annulled;

the First Board of Appeal

— the contested decision be altered to hold that the Agree-
ment; applies to trade marks other than the particular
registrations identified in the Agreement and extends to
future marks; precludes the opponent from opposing or
objecting in any manner whatsoever to any use or regis-
tration by BSkyB of trade marks containing ‘SKY’ other
than ‘SKYROCK’ and ‘SKYZIN’ both of which were as
determined by the French courts; and is a final and
binding settlement agreement between BSkyB and the
opponent as determined by the French courts (including
to the highest level in France);

— the contested decision be altered and revisited so as to
deal with and address all of the grounds raised by BSkyB
in its response to the opposition;

— OHIM pay the costs and fees of BSkyB.

Application for suspension of operation of Commission Deci-
sion C(2007) 5087 final of 23 October 2007 in Case
No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted
by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Operative part of the order

1. The application is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘SKY’ for
goods and services in classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 38, 41 and
42 — application No 3 166 378

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Vortex SA

Mark or sign cited: The Community and national word marks
‘SKYROCK’ for goods and services classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35,
38, 41 and 42

C 116/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.5.2008

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the
goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 41, as well as for ‘adver-
tising’ in class 35

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition
Division's decision and rejection of the opposition in its entirety

the
in law: Without contesting the operative part of
Pleas
contested decision, the applicant contends that the reasoning of
the Board of Appeal infringes Council Regulation No 40/94 and
the rules of law relating to its application.

Action brought on 15 February 2008 — E.I. du Pont de
Nemours and Others v Commission

(Case T-76/08)

(2008/C 116/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
Commission committed manifest errors of assessment of the
facts, erred in law and failed to provide adequate reasoning for
its decision:

— in holding the applicant E.I. DuPont liable for the involve-
ment of the joint venture DuPont Dow Elastomers in the
cartel for the period after the applicant E.I. DuPont had
transferred its entire elastomers business, including chloro-
prene rubber, to DuPont Dow Elastomers;

— in imposing a fine on E.I. DuPont for the period prior to the
transfer of its elastomer activities to DuPont Dow Elasto-
mers, when the Commission was in fact time-barred from
doing so;

— in not having demonstrated a legitimate interest in issuing a

decision against E.I. DuPont in this case;

— in not having shown that Bayer and DuPont Dow Elastomers
had reached an agreement or an understanding over the
closures of plants;

— in using a multiplier for duration of 6.5 equating six years
and six full months, when the duration of the involvement
of DuPont Dow Elastomers was only of six years and one
full month;

— in not granting the applicants the maximum available

leniency reduction of 30 %; and

— in finding that an employee of DuPont Dow Elastomers

participated in the cartel.

States), DuPont

Applicants: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (Wilmington,
United
LLC
(Wilmington, United States), DuPont Performance Elastomers
SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Boyce and A. Lyle-
Smythe, Solicitors)

Performance

Elastomers

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Dow Chemical v
Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 1(b) of the decision insofar as it finds that E.I.

DuPont was a party to the infringement;

— annul Article 2(b) of the decision insofar as it finds E.I.

DuPont liable to pay a fine;

(Case T-77/08)

(2008/C 116/41)

Language of the case: English

— reduce the fines imposed on the applicants pursuant to

Parties

Article 2(b) of the decision; and

— order the Commission to bear its own costs and those

incurred by the applicants.

Applicant: The Dow Chemical Company (Midland, United States)
(represented by: D. Schroeder and T. Graf, lawyers)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Decision
C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 (Case COMP/F/38.629
— Chloroprene Rubber), by which the Commission found that
the applicants, together with other undertakings, had infringed
Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European
Economic Area by participating in a single and continuing
agreement and/or concerted practice in the chloroprene rubber
sector.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision insofar as it relates to the applicant;

— in the alternative, substantially reduce its fine; and

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other

costs and expenses in relation to this matter.