Case T-407/08: Action brought on 22 September 2008 — MIP Metro v OHIM — CBT Comunicación Multimedia (Metromeet)
Date: 2008-09-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Germany, Spain, action for annulment (EU), provision of services, trade-mark law

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/31

Fifth, the contested decision lacks adequate reasoning.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on
the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid
(OJ 2001 L 10, p. 20); amended by Regulation (EC) No 363/2004
(OJ 2004 L 63, p. 20) and Regulation (EC) No 1976/2006 (OJ 2006
L 363, p. 85).

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the
Opposition Division and rejection of the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 40/94 in that there is a likelihood of confusion
between the marks at issue.

Action brought on 22 September 2008 — MIP Metro v
OHIM — CBT Comunicación Multimedia (Metromeet)

(Case T-407/08)

(2008/C 327/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Action brought on 30 September 2008 — Sacem v
Commission

(Case T-422/08)

(2008/C 327/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH &
Co. KG (Dusseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R.
Kaase, lawyers)

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

Applicant: Société des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs de
musique (Sacem) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: H.
Calvet, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
CBT Comunicación Multimedia, SL (Getxo, Spain)

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of
12 June 2008 in Case R 387/2007-1 as it is incompatible
with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Com-
munity trade mark and refuse application No 37 405 29 for
the Community trade mark ‘metromeet’;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including

those of the opposition and appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: CBT Comunicación Multi-
media, SL

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Metromeet’ for
goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35 and 41 — Application
No 3 740 529

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: MIP
Metro

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark
‘METRO’ and the word mark ‘meeting metro’ for goods and
services in Classes 9, 16, 35 and 41

finds,

— annul the Commission's decision of 16 July 2008 in Case
COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC in so far as it (i)
in
Article 1, that the applicant had infringed Article 81 of the
EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by using, in
the membership
its reciprocal representation agreements,
restrictions which were contained in Article 11(II) of the
CISAC model contract, or by de facto applying those
membership restrictions, and (ii) orders it, as a result,
in
Article 4.1, to bring that infringement immediately to an
end, insofar as it has not already done so, and to communi-
cate to the Commission all the measures it has taken for
that purpose;

— annul the Commission's decision of 16 July 2008 in Case
in
COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC in so far as it (i)
finds,
Article 3, that the applicant infringed Article 81 of
the
EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by coordi-
nating the territorial delineations in a way which limits a
licence to the domestic territory of each collecting society
and (ii) orders it, as a result, in Article 4.2, within 120 days
of the date of notification of this decision, to bring to an
end the infringement and, within that period of time, to
communicate to the Commission all the measures it has
taken for that purpose;

— annul the Commission's decision of 16 July 2008 in Case
COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC in so far as it orders the appli-
cant to refrain from repeating any act or conduct described
in Articles 1 and 3, and from any act or conduct having the
same, or similar, object or effect.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

— order the defendant to pay the costs.