Case T-201/08: Action brought on 26 May 2008 — Market Watch v OHIM — Ares Trading (SEROSLIM)
Date: 2008-05-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cosmetic product, toiletries, trade-mark law

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/27

— uphold the claims seeking annulment and damages put
forward by the appellant before the Civil Service Tribunal;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the case, those
incurred both by the applicant company and by Mr Cattin.

— order the Commission to pay the costs of both cases.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this appeal, the appellant requests the Court to set aside the
judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal on 6 March
2008 in Case F-46/06 Skareby v Commission, which dismissed
her action for, first, annulment of her career development report
for 2004 and, second, damages.

In support of her appeal, the appellant puts forward two pleas,
(paragraphs 66, 98
alleging manifest errors of assessment
and 113 of the contested judgment) and distortion of the clear
sense of evidence (paragraph 68).

Action brought on 21 May 2008 — Cattin and Cattin v
Commission

(Case T-194/08)

(2008/C 197/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: R. Cattin & Cie (Bimbo, Central African Republic)
and Yves Cattin (Cadiz, Spain) (represented by: B. Wägenbaur,
lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant company, specialising in production, processing
and exportation of coffee in the Central African Republic, has
been refused reimbursement via funds of the European Develop-
ment Fund (EDF) of debts which it held from the State body
‘Soutien Café’, a body created to support the price of coffee at
the time of large reductions in prices at the end of the 1980's.
The applicant company was refused reimbursement on the
ground that, according to an audit report established at the
request of the national authorities, it had probably embezzled
certain sums for the benefit of its associates. Following that
refusal, the applicant company has had to suspend all its activ-
ities and dismiss the 800 permanent employees working in its
plantations.

In support of their action, the applicants allege, firstly, a breach
of (i) their rights of the defence, since the applicant company
did not present evidence at the time the audit report which
found that there had been embezzlement was established and
(ii) of the presumption of innocence, since no evidence was put
forward to support that finding.

Next, the applicants raise a plea alleging breach of the principles
of effective judicial protection, legal certainty and the duty to
give reasons, since the applicant company was refused reimbur-
sement without the Commission having sent it any decision and
without the company having been informed formally of the
recommendations of the audit report on which that refusal was
based.

Finally, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed the
principles of due care and sound administration, since applica-
tions sent
to the Commission by the national authorities
concerning the applicant company's case went unanswered and
the audit report was based on incorrect figures, which meant
that a second expert opinion was required, which the Commis-
sion accepted without, however, obtaining such an opinion.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 26 May 2008 — Market Watch v OHIM
— Ares Trading (SEROSLIM)

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant company a total of

EUR 18 946 139 for material loss suffered;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant company the sum

of EUR 100 000 for non-material loss suffered;

— Order

the defendant

to pay Mr Cattin the sum of

EUR 150 000 for non-material loss suffered;

— Add default interest to those amounts to run from the date
of delivery of the judgment in the present case until effective
payment, at an annual rate equal to the rate fixed by the
European Central Bank for main refinancing operations plus
2 points, such rate not to exceed 6 %;

(Case T-201/08)

(2008/C 197/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (Freeport,
Bahamas) (represented by: J. E. Korab, lawyer)

C 197/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2008

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

Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Team Relocations NV v
Commission

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ares
Trading, SA (Aubonne, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

— The complaint filed by the applicant be admitted;

Parties

(Case T-204/08)

(2008/C 197/50)

Language of the case: English

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 6 March 2008 in case R 0805/2007-2 and
the application filed by the other party to the proceedings
before the Board of Appeal requesting a declaration of inva-
lidity of the Community trade mark concerned be dismissed;
and

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SEROSLIM’ for
goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 35 — application
No 4 113 321

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: The word mark ‘SEROSTIM’ for goods in
class 5 — Community trade mark 2 405 694

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition with
respect to all the goods in class 5 and in respect of ‘soaps, hair
lotions and dentifrices’ in class 3

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation
No 40/94 as the most important aspect in assessing the exis-
tence of any likelihood of confusion is the overall impression
created by the two trade marks in question on the public
concerned. Furthermore, the existence of a likelihood of confu-
sion that would be relevant from the point of view of trade
mark law, depends, in this connection, on a large number of
circumstances, including, but not limited to, the recognition of
the trade mark in question, the associations that the used or
registered sign appears to be able to create, as well as the degree
of similarity between the mark and the sign or between the
goods and services identified.

Applicant(s): Team Relocations NV (Zaventem, Belgium) (repre-
sented by: H. Gilliams, J. Bocken, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 11 March
removal
2008 in Case COMP/38.543 — International
services,
insofar as it declares that the applicant infringed
Article 81 EC and Article 53(1) EEA in the period January
1997 — September 2003 by directly and indirectly fixing
prices
in Belgium,
International Removal Services
sharing part of the market and manipulating the procedure
of submission of tenders;

for

— annul Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 11 March
2008 in Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal
Services, in so far as it imposes on the applicant a fine of
EUR 3,49 million;

— in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed by

the aforementioned decision;

— in any event, order the costs of the proceedings to be borne

by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment
pursuant to Article 230 EC of Articles 1 and 2 of Commis-
sion Decision C(2008)926 final of 11 March 2008 (Case
COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services) relating to a
proceeding under Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) EEA in so
far as it imposes a fine on the applicant.

The applicant puts forward eight pleas in law in support of its
claims:

the applicant claims

First,
the Commission violated
that
Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA as well as the duty to state
reasons by asserting in Article 1 of its decision that the appli-
cant participated from January 1997 to September 2003 in a
single, continuous infringement of Article 81 EC.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission violated the
principle of equal treatment as well as the 2006 Fining Guide-
lines (1) by taking into account, for purposes of calculating the
basic amount of the fine, the applicant's aggregate sales on the
Belgian market for international removals,
including turnover
derived from moves for private individuals.