Case T-423/08: Action brought on 27 September 2008 — INTER-NETT 2000 v OHIM
Date: 2008-09-27
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Hungary, action for annulment (EU), agricultural production, originating product, quality label, trade-mark law

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/43

— Annul Article 3 and/or Article 4(2) of the Commission deci-
sion dated 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under
Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698
— CISAC);

Under the third plea in law put forward by the applicant, the
remedies imposed by Article 4(2) of the contested decision are
legally uncertain, unjustified, not necessary and/or dispropor-
tionate to bring the alleged infringement to an end.

— In the alternative, annul Article 3 and/or Article 4(2) of the
Commission decision dated 16 July 2008 relating to a
proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case
COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) as regards to the inclusion of
the applicant;

— Order that the Commission pay the costs incurred by the

applicant.

Under its fourth plea, the applicant submits that the Commis-
sion infringed its right to be heard by not informing it of its
reasons not to accept the proposed commitments.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81
and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 27 September 2008 — INTER-NETT
2000 v OHIM

the present application,

By means of
the applicant seeks,
pursuant to Article 230 EC, the annulment, in whole or in part,
of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 of 16 July 2008
relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA
(Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

(Case T-423/08)

(2008/C 313/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian

the applicant alleges that

Under the first plea in law,
the
reasoning in the contested decision does not support a finding
of infringement for any of the following three forms of exploita-
tion: satellite broadcasting, on-line and cable retransmission. On
this basis, the applicant contends that the Commission failed to
provide evidence relating to the alleged existence of a concerted
practice in which all EEA CISAC members engaged by limiting
the scope of their reciprocal mandates to their respective terri-
tories. This constitutes, according to the applicant, an error of
assessment
and an infringement of Article 81 EC and
Article 253 EC. Indeed, the applicant submits that there is no
parallel behaviour amongst all EEA CISAC members as illu-
strated by the exceptions to the territorial delineation mentioned
in the contested decision itself. In addition, the applicant claims
that the contested decision suffers from inadequate reasoning
due to its silence as to the starting date and therefore the dura-
the infringements, notably the concerted practice,
tion of
thereby also infringing Articles 2 and 16(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 1/2003 (1).

Under the second plea in law the applicant submits that the
reasoning in the contested decision is faulty as it does not prove
that the applicant participated in the alleged concerted practice.
Further, according to the applicant there is a plausible explana-
tion to its behaviour other than the existence of a concerted
practice, namely, that is chooses those solutions which it deems
to be commercially preferable. It is submitted, moreover, that
in accordance with established case-law,
the Commission,
individual
is
should have looked into whether
economic behaviour
to appoint one or more additional
collecting societies to be able to compete with both the local
collecting society and the grantor society doing direct licensing.

rational

it

Parties

Applicant(s): INTER-NETT 2000 Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft
(Inter-Nett 2000 Kft)
(represented by: E.
Petruska, lawyer)

(Mór, Hungary)

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

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of
OHIM: Unión de Agricultores, S.A. (El Ejido, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Set aside the decision of the second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 22 July 2008 (Case R 71/2008-2) and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: INTER-NETT 2000

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘HUNGARO’
for goods and services in classes 29, 31 and 35 (application
No 004508917).

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.