Case T-427/08: Action brought on 24 September 2008 — CEAHR v Commission
Date: 2008-09-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Belgium, European Community, action for annulment (EU), clock and watch industry, spare part

C 313/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.12.2008

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Unión de Agricultores, S.A.

In support of its claims the applicant argues that the Commis-
sion infringed the Treaty by deforming the applicant's complaint
and thus, using materially incorrect facts in its decision.

Mark or
‘UNIAGRO’ for goods in class 31.

sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partly upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94,
in that OHIM misinterpreted that provision, and breach of
Article 12(a) and (b) of Regulation No 40/94, in that the deci-
sion of OHIM prevents the applicant from using the name of its
proprietor and the designation of the geographical origin of the
goods.

Action brought on 24 September 2008 — CEAHR v
Commission

(Case T-427/08)

(2008/C 313/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Confédération Européenne des Associations d'Horlo-
gers-Réparateurs (CEAHR) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P.
Mathijsen, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

that

submits

the applicant

Furthermore,
the Commission
committed errors in law and infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC
by deciding that the watch manufacturers complained of didn't
held a dominant position and that their refusal to sell spare
parts outside the selective distribution system didn't constitute
an abuse of their dominant position. The applicant also contests
the Commission's conclusions that there were agreements or
concerted practices between watch manufacturers.

The applicant contends that the Commission misused its power
by using the argument of lack of Community interest after a
four-year investigation of the applicant's complaint.

Moreover, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to
state reasons thereby infringing Article 253 EC.

Finally, in the applicant's opinion, the Commission infringed the
principle of impartiality in investigating its complaint.

Action brought on 30 September 2008 — STEF v
Commission

(Case T-428/08)

(2008/C 313/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision SG-Greffe(2008) D/204448 of

10 July 2008;

Applicant: Samband tónskálda og eigenda flutningsréttar (STEF)
(Reykjavík,
(represented by: H. Melkorka Óttarsdóttir,
lawyer)

Island)

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case,
the applicant seeks the annulment of
Commission Decision SG-Greffe(2008) D/204448 of 10 July
2008 by which the Commission rejected,
for lack of Com-
munity interest, the applicant's complaint regarding the alleged
violations of Article 81 and 82 EC in connection with the
watch manufacturers' refusal to supply spare parts to indepen-
dent watch repairers [Case C(2008) 3600].

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 16 July
2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and
Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC); and

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.