Case T-249/08: Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Coin v OHIM — Dynamiki Zoi (FITCOIN)
Date: 2008-06-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing industry, financial market, leisure, pulp and paper industry, sport, trade-mark law

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/63

1. In tender No 2034 for the production and duplication of
CD-ROMs containing the L and C series of
the Official
journal: by awarding the tender to a competitor of the appli-
cant, in spite of the applicant having submitted the econom-
ically most advantageous bid; by amending the key specifica-
tions and lowering tender requirements during the tender
procedure or after the successful tenderer had been selected
without informing other competitors; by refusing to carry
out a proper review of the tender results when objections
concerning the outcome of the tender were brought to the
Publications Office's attention; by failing to organise a new
tender instead of continuing contract No 2034 on the basis
of significantly lowered standards.

information;

2. In tender No 6019 for the provision of services in relation
to electronic publications, in particular the Supplement (S) of
the Official Journal, after the accession of 10 new member
States: by cancelling the tender on the basis of Article 101 of
Regulation 1605/2002 (1) for reason of disclosure of confi-
the said
dential
disclosure could not have influenced the tender results as the
information was already in the public knowledge and the
bids had already been submitted by then. Moreover,
the
applicant claims that there was no proper motivation given
by the Publications Office. It finally submits that the cancella-
tion caused significant damage to the applicant which had
submitted the most advantageous of the two remaining bids
within the cancelled tender.

the applicant submits that

3. In tender No 1695 for the provision of services in relation
to electronic publications, in particular the Supplement (S) of
the Official
Journal: by using the extension of Contract
No 1695 to amend it. The applicant claims that there was
no legal basis for the Publications Office to proceed or to
authorise the extension of the Contract and, in consequence,
to amend it by changing the subcontractor. The applicant
submits
the Publications Office failed to seriously
negotiate or investigate the possibility of maintaining the
applicant as the existing main subcontractor during the
remaining period.

that

The applicant claims that as a direct result of the abovemen-
tioned infringements, it lost its position as the Publications Offi-
ce's software provider and incurred significant costs, damages
and loss of profits and it considers the Publications Office to be
liable to compensate them.

(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).

Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Coin v OHIM —
Dynamiki Zoi (FITCOIN)

(Case T-249/08)

(2008/C 209/112)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Coin SpA (Mestre, Venezia,
P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

Italy)

(represented by:

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dynamiki
Zoi Anonymi Etairia (Peristeri, Greece)

Form of order sought

— Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) of 15 April 2008 in case R 1429/2007-1;

— Reject Community trade mark No 3 725 298 ‘FITCOIN’;

and

— Order the other parties to pay the costs, including those of

the OHIM opposition and appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FITCOIN’ for
goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41 —
application No 3 725 298

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
applicant

Mark or sign cited: The Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration
No 160 126 for goods in class 25; the Italian trade mark ‘coin’
registration No 253 233 for goods and services in classes 16,
25, 28, 35, 36 and 41; the Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration
No 240 305 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35,
36 and 41; the Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 169 548
for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41,
extended to Benelux, France, Hungary, Austria and Portugal; the
Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 240 286 for goods and
services in class 25, extended to Benelux, France, Hungary and
Austria; Community trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 109 827
for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35; international
trade mark ‘coin’ registration No R 381 015 for goods and
services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41, extended to
Benelux, Germany, Spain, France, Hungary, Austria, Portugal
and Slovenia.

C 209/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in
its entirety

or administrative action in Member States concerning the
pursuit of television broadcasting activities.

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 trade marks concerned are visually and phone-
tically similar and the goods and services covered by the trade
marks concerned are identical;
infringement of Article 8 of
Council Regulation No 40/94 as the use of the trade mark
applied for is likely to cause confusion.

Action brought on 18 June 2008 — Batchelor v
Commission

(Case T-250/08)

(2008/C 209/113)

Language of the case: English

that

The applicant claims
the contested decision violates
Article 253 EC and Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of the Access Regu-
lation and thus is vitiated by an infringement of an essential
procedural requirement, namely, by failing to give sufficient
reasons for denial of access to the documents requested. The
applicant further submits that, in denying access to the docu-
ments requested, the contested decision violates Article 255 EC
and Articles 1(a), 2(1) and (3), 4(1) to (6) of the Access Regu-
lation. In particular, the applicant contends that the contested
decision infringes the Access Regulation in holding that the
exceptions under the second paragraph of Article 4(3) and of
the first and third indents of Article 4(2) thereof applied and,
finally, that the contested decision infringes Article 4(6) of the
Access Regulation in failing to provide reasons for the refusal of
partial access to the documents requested.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145,
p. 43).

Parties

Action brought on 26 June 2008 — Tipik v Commission

Applicant: Edward William Batchelor (Brussels, Belgium) (repre-
sented by:
and
D. Reymond, lawyer)

F. Young, Solicitor, A. Barav, Barrister,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

(Case T-252/08)

(2008/C 209/114)

Language of the case: French

— Annul the implied negative decision deemed, pursuant to
Article 8(3) of the Access Regulation, to have been made by
the European Commission on 9 April 2008 and the express
negative decision made by the Commission on 16 May
2008,
to documents
presented pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the
European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2001
regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and
Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43);

relating to a request

for access

Parties

Applicant: Tipik Communication Agency SA (Brussels, Belgium)
(represented by: E. Gillet, L. Levi and C. Dubois, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— Order the Commission to pay its own costs and the costs
incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings.

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application for annulment under Article 230 EC is directed
against the Commission's implied decision of 9 April 2008 and
its express decision of 16 May 2008, made pursuant to Regu-
lation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)
(‘the Access Regulation’), by
which the Commission rejected the applicant's request for access
to documents relating to the notification of measures taken
under Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the
coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation

— Annul the decision of the Commission, the date of which is
the tender
unknown, by which it was decided to reject
submitted by the applicant in the award procedure for the
public service contract concerning, inter alia, the EUROPA
Internet site (PO/2007-31/C2);

— Annul the decision of the Commission, the date of which is
unknown, by which it was decided to award that public
contract to the consortium led by the company European
Service Network;