Case T-353/08: Action brought on 26 August 2008 — vwd Vereinigte Wirtschaftsdienste v Commission
Date: 2008-08-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Germany, action for annulment (EU), disclosure of information, economic concentration

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/41

By way of alternative submission, the applicants contend that
Regulation No 149/2008 concerns a decision which comes
within the scope of Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Convention (4).
it relates to a decision
Indeed, according to the applicants,
which is of direct and individual concern to the applicants in a
manner which satisfies the requirements of the fourth paragraph
of Article 230 EC.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 of 29 January 2008
amending Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament
and of the Council by establishing Annexes II, III and IV setting
maximum residue levels for products covered by Annex I thereto
(Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 58, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provi-
sions of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public
participation in decision-making and access to justice in environ-
mental matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006
L 264, p. 13).

(3) Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesti-
cides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and
amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (Text with EEA relevance)
(OJ 2005 L 70, p. 1).

(4) Convention on access to information, public participation in deci-
sion-making and access to justice in environmental matters —
Declarations (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 4).

Action brought on 26 August 2008 — vwd Vereinigte
Wirtschaftsdienste v Commission

(Case T-353/08)

(2008/C 301/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: vwd Vereinigte Wirtschaftsdienste AG (Frankfurt am
Main, Germany) (represented by R. Bechtold, U. Soltész and C.
von Köckritz, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— order

the Commission to pay the applicant's costs,

in
accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission's decision of 19 February
2008 in Case No COMP/M.4726 — Thomson Corporation/
Reuters Group, declaring the concentration of financial informa-
tion providers Thomson Corporation and Reuters Group
compatible with the common market
in accordance with
Article 8(2) of the EC Merger Regulation (1).

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment,
errors of law and breaches of essential procedural requirements.
In this respect the applicant puts forward ten pleas in law.

First, the market for ‘real time datafeeds’ was wrongly delimited,
so that the decision is contradictory and conflicts with the deci-
sion-making practice of the Commission.

Second, the market position of the parties and the effects of the
concentration on the ‘real time datafeeds’ markets were incor-
rectly assessed,
emanating from
Thomson being wrongly assessed in evaluating the horizontal
the
effects of
concentration being misunderstood.

the concentration and the vertical effects of

competitive pressure

the

Third, in the market for ‘market data platforms’, the competitive
emanating from Thomson in combination with
pressure
Wombat as the only serious potential competitor was disre-
garded when assessing the horizontal effects of the concentra-
tion.

Fourth, the strengthening as a result of the concentration of
Reuters' incentives to foreclose access by third parties to ‘contri-
bution data’ was not assessed.

Fifth, in the market for ‘news’, the market position of the parties
and the effects of the concentration were assessed wrongly, and
the creation of a monopoly on the ‘upstream’ market was made
possible without comprehensible reasons being given.

Sixth, in the markets for ‘desktop products in research and asset
management’, and in particular in the national markets for
‘wealth management desktop products’, no adequate investiga-
tion was made of the effects on competition of the concentra-
tion.

Seventh, the negative overall effects of the concentration across
market boundaries were not examined, even though the
Commission recognised in the decision that
the relevant
markets overlapped.

— annul in its entirety, in accordance with the first paragraph
of Article 231 EC, the Commission's decision of 19 February
2008, COMP/M.4726 — Thomson Corporation/Reuters
Group;

Eighth, commitments which did not relate to all the markets on
which the concentration hindered effective competition were
regarded as sufficient.

C 301/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

Ninth, the commitments in the areas covered were furthermore
incapable of ensuring effective competition.

Tenth, the applicant's right to a fair hearing was infringed by
procedural errors.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the
control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger
Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation 40/94 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the
trade marks at issue due to their similar overall impression.

Action

brought

on

28 August

2008 — IFAW

Internationaler Tiershutz-Fonds v Commission

Action brought on 27 August 2008 — Peek & Cloppenburg
and van Graaf v OHIM — Thailand (Thai Silk)

(Case T-361/08)

(2008/C 301/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

(Case T-362/08)

(2008/C 301/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany) and van
Graaf GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: V. von
Bombard, A. Renck, T. Dolde and J. Pause, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Thailand

Form of order sought

— annulment of the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
the Office
Internal Market
for Harmonisation in the
(Trade Marks and Designs) No R 1677/2007-4 of 10 June
2008

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Thailand

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark ‘Thai
Silk’ with the colours ‘dark blue and white’
for goods in
Classes 24 and 25 (Registration No 4 099 297)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the
Applicants

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Representation of a black and
white peacock for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

IFAW Internationaler

Applicant:
gGmbH
(Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Crosby and S. Santoro,
lawyers)

Tiershutz-Fonds

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— To order the Commission to produce to the Court the letter
from Mr Schröder, German Chancellor, of 15 March 2000
to Mr Prodi, President of the Commission;

— To find that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of
law and by manifest errors of assessment and to annul it
accordingly; and

— To order

the Commission to pay the applicant's costs
pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of procedure of the
Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By judgment of 18 December 2007 in Case C-64/05 P (1), the
Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of 30 November 2004 in Case T-168/02 IFAW Interna-
tionaler Tierschutz-Fonds v Commission [2004] ECR 1435, annul-
ling the Commission's decision of 26 March 2002 which had
refused access to the documents requested by the applicant by
application of 20 December 2001, concerning the declassifica-
tion of the Elbe site in Hamburg, a nature reserve, protected by
the Natura 2000 scheme, as established by Council Directive
92/43/EEC (2),
the existing Daimler
Chrysler Aerospace GmbH plant for the final assembly of the
Airbus A3XX. As a consequence,
in the light of the Court's
judgment on appeal, the applicant, by letter of 13 February
2008, renewed its application for access to the requested docu-
ments and made a confirmatory application, in accordance with
Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (3) on 29 April
2008.

the expansion of

for