Case T-84/08: Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM — MIP Metro (COMIT)
Date: 2008-02-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), banking, trade-mark law

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/23

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks 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 applicant, 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.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
Commission committed manifest errors of assessment of the
facts and erred in law in holding the applicant liable for the
infringement of
the joint venture DuPont Dow Elastomers.
According to the applicant, the Commission failed to establish
that the applicant had a decisive influence over DuPont Dow
Elastomers. Furthermore, the applicant contends that it did not
form a single economic unit with DuPont Dow Elastomers.

Moreover, the applicant alleges that the Commission committed
a manifest error of assessment of the facts, erred in law and
failed to provide adequate reasoning for its decision:

— in using a multiplier for duration of 6.5 even though the
duration of the infringement was only six years and one
month;

— confirm the OHIM Opposition Division's decision dated
12 January 2006, ruling on opposition No B 675 803, as
far as it allows application No 3 104 155 COMIT to
proceed to registration for classes 35, 36, 41 and 42;

— alter

the OHIM Opposition Division's decision dated
12 January 2006, ruling on opposition No B 675 803, as
far as it accepts opposition No B 675 803, in part, for the
goods in class 16;

— as a consequence, reject opposition No B 675 803 in its
entirety and allow application No 3 104 155 COMIT to
proceed to registration for all the goods and services of
classes 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42;

— order

the defendants to bear

the present
proceeding, as well as those of the OHIM opposition and
appeal proceedings.

the costs of

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘COMIT’ for
goods and services in classes 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42 — applica-
tion No 3 104 155

— in increasing the fine to be imposed on the applicant by

10 % for sufficient deterrent effect; and

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: MIP
Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG

— in not granting the applicant
leniency reduction of 30 %.

the maximum available

Mark or sign cited: The national
goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42

figurative mark ‘Comet’

for

Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Intesa Sanpaolo v
OHIM — MIP Metro (COMIT)

(Case T-84/08)

(2008/C 116/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Torino, Italy) (represented by: A.
Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

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

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld

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

Pleas in law: According to the applicant, there is no likelihood of
confusion between the conflicting trade marks.

Action brought on 28 February 2008 — TNC Kazchrome
and ENRC Marketing v Council and Commission

(Case T-107/08)

(2008/C 116/43)

Language of the case: English

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP
Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf,
Germany)

Parties

Form of order sought

stock company

Joint
(TNC Kazchrome)

‘Transnational Company
Applicants:
Kazchrome’
(Actobe, Kazakhstan), ENRC
Marketing AG (Kloten, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Ruess-
mann and A. Willems, lawyers)

— Totally alter the decision of the OHIM Fourth Board of
Appeal, Case R 138/2006-4, rendered on 19 December
2007 and notified on 27 December 2007;

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