Case T-67/08: Action brought on 11 February 2008 — Hedgefund Intelligence v OHIM — Hedge Invest (InvestHedge)
Date: 2008-02-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), financial market, information, trade-mark law

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™;