Case T-68/08: Action brought on 6 February 2008 — FIFA v Commission
Date: 2008-02-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition law, free movement of programmes, professional sport, sporting event, sports body

C 107/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2008

the

applicants

claim that

Furthermore,
the Commission
committed a manifest error of assessment of the qualitative
criteria laid down in the tender specifications, which in turn led
to a manifest error of assessment in the setting of the bidders'
respective scores.

Finally, the applicants allege that the Commission breached the
principle of good administration by failing to exercise due care
during the tender procedure.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002
on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1), as rectified (OJ 2003
L 25, p. 43).

Action brought on 11 February 2008 — Hedgefund
Intelligence v OHIM — Hedge Invest (InvestHedge)

(Case T-67/08)

(2008/C 107/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hedgefund Intelligence Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
(represented by: J. Reed, Barrister, and G. Crofton Martin, Soli-
citor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hedge
Invest SGR P.A. (Milan, Italy)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Hedge Invest SGR P.A.

Mark or sign cited: The Community figurative mark ‘HEDGE
INVEST’ for services in class 36

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the
contested services in classes 36 and 41; the trade mark applica-
tion allowed to proceed for the non-contested goods in classes 9
and 16

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant submits that when determining the
visual similarity of the respective marks in the eyes of non-
English speaking consumers, the Board of Appeal was wrong to
impression’ and to consider
take account of the ‘commercial
that the commercial impression of the conflicting trade marks
was the same.

When assessing the aural similarity of
the conflicting trade
marks to the ears of non-English speaking consumers, the Board
of Appeal improperly put the burden of proof on the applicant.

Finally, the Board of Appeal failed to apply, at the relevant stage,
there was only a very limited
the uncontested finding that
and/or remote degree of similarity between the services in
classes 36 and 41.

Action brought on 6 February 2008 — FIFA v Commission

(Case T-68/08)

(2008/C 107/51)

Language of the case: English

Form of order sought

Parties

— The decision of

the Second Board of Appeal dated
28 November 2007 in Case R 148/2007-2 dismissing the
appeal shall be annulled;

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

(Zurich, Switzerland)

— the Opponent's opposition be dismissed;

— the Office and the other party shall bear their own costs,
and the other party shall pay those of the applicant before
the Opposition Division,
the Board of Appeal and this
Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

trade mark

Community
figurative mark
concerned:
‘InvestHedge’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 36 and 41
— application No 3 081 081

The

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment, in whole or in part, of the Commission Deci-
sion 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 on the compatibility
with Community law of measures taken by the United
Kingdom 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,
in particular Articles 1-3 thereof in so far as it
concerns the FIFA World Cup™;

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/31

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

costs in connection with these proceedings.

and by restricting competition on related free-to-air television,
advertising and premium sports pay-television markets.

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
2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 (2) by which the Commis-
sion declared that the list drawn up by the United Kingdom
pursuant
to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC,
listing all 64 FIFA World Cup matches, was compatible with
Community law. This prevents FIFA from granting exclusive
licenses to broadcasters in respect of live broadcasting in the
United Kingdom of any of the FIFA World Cup matches.

Finally, the applicant alleges that the contested decision infringes
the provisions of the EC Treaty on the right of establishment by
restricting access to live exclusive broadcasting rights in the
United Kingdom to any of the matches played within the frame-
work of the FIFA World Cup by entrants or potential entrants
into the relevant British market.

(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 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 on the
compatibility with Community law of measures taken by the United
Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC
on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regu-
lation or administrative action in Member States concerning the
pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 295, p. 12).

Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Axis AB v OHIM
— Etra Investigación y Desarollo (ETRAX)

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
Commission's decision is vitiated by an infringement of an
essential procedural requirement by failing to state reasons for
approving the inclusion of all 64 matches in the FIFA World
Cup on the list of the United Kingdom.

(Case T-70/08)

(2008/C 107/52)

Furthermore, the applicant contends that the contested decision
infringes Directive 89/552/EEC, as the procedure followed by
the British authorities for the adoption of the measure was not
clear and transparent, and as all the matches played within the
framework of the FIFA World Cup were not of major impor-
tance for the British society.

Parties

Language in which the application was lodged: English

The applicant moreover alleges that
the contested decision
infringes the applicant's property rights by preventing it from
granting exclusive licenses in respect of live broadcasting in the
United Kingdom for any of
the matches played within the
framework of the FIFA World Cup.

Applicant: Axis AB (Lund, Sweden) (represented by: J. Norderyd,
lawyer)

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

further claims

The applicant
contested decision
infringes the provisions of the EC Treaty on freedom to provide
services by depriving the applicant from licensing and broadcas-
ters from acquiring live exclusive rights to any of the FIFA
World Cup matches broadcasted in the United Kingdom.

that

the

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Etra Inves-
tigación y Desarollo SA (Valencia, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant also claims that the contested decision infringes
the provisions of the EC Treaty on competition by permitting
an abusive behaviour of a joint dominant position and/or anti-
competitive agreement for the acquisition of live broadcasting
rights to international football matches in the United Kingdom

— Annul

the decision of

the Second Board of Appeal of

27 November 2007 in Case R 334/2007-2;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.