Case T-200/08: Action brought on 22 May 2008 — Interflon v OHIM — Illinois Tool Works (FOODLUBE)
Date: 2008-05-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), food industry, lubricants, trade-mark law

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/29

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of
Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 in
Case COMP/38.453 — International Removal Services, by
which the Commission found that
certain undertakings,
including the applicant, infringed Article 81 of the EC Treaty
and Article 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement by
fixing prices in Belgium for international removal services, by
sharing part of that market and by rigging the procedure under
invitations to tender.

its allegations,

the applicant claims that

the
In support of
Commission made manifest errors of assessment and of law in
the definition of the market in question and in the evaluation of
its size and of the market shares of each of the companies in
question.

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Illinois
Tool Works Inc. (Glenview, United States)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 3 March 2008 in case R 638/2007-2; and

— grant applicant's request for the cancellation of the Com-

munity trade mark concerned.

The applicant relies, in addition, on pleas in law alleging breach
of the duty to state the reasons for the decision, of the rights of
the defence, of the right of access to the file, of the right to fair
procedure and of the general principle of sound administration.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FOODLUBE’ for
goods in classes 1 and 4 — registration No 1 647 734

So far as concerns the fine imposed and its amount, the appli-
cant claims that:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Refusal of the request for the
declaration of invalidity

— the Commission did not show that the practices in questions
had appreciably affected trade between the Member States;

— the amount of the find is disproportionate in relation to the
effective extent of the practices and their actual effect on the
market; and

— the practice of bogus quotes was known and accepted by
the Commission for a long time; the lack of any reaction by
the Commission led the applicant to believe that the practice
was lawful.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 as the trade mark concerned is devoid of any
distinctive character; infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council
Regulation 40/94 as the trade mark concerned is not capable of
distinguishing the indicated goods in terms of their origin.

into account,

as mitigating circumstances,

Finally, the applicant maintains that the Commission did not
take
the
concerted practice ceased long ago so far as the applicant was
concerned and that bogus quotes were a response to market
demand and not a cartel or concerted practice. The applicant
also relies on breach of the principle of equal treatment.

that

Action brought on 5 June 2008 — CLL Centre de langues v
Commission

(Case T-202/08)

(2008/C 183/55)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 22 May 2008 — Interflon v OHIM —
Illinois Tool Works (FOODLUBE)

Parties

(Case T-200/08)

(2008/C 183/54)

Applicant: Centre de langues à Louvain-la-Neuve et -en-Woluwe
(CLL Centre de langues)
(repre-
sented by: F. Tulkens and V. Ost, lawyers)

(Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

— Annul the rejection decision;

Applicant: Interflon BV (Roosendaal, Netherlands) (represented
by: S. M. Wertwijn, lawyer)

— Order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay

those incurred by CLL.