Case T-413/08: Action brought on 29 September 2008 — SOZA v Commission
Date: 2008-09-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Slovakia, action for annulment (EU), competition, copyright, intellectual property, regional planning

C 301/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal (i) failed to asses the
similarity of the trade marks by taking into account the overall
impression of the earlier trade mark, and (ii) failed to take into
account the interdependence of the relevant factors, in particular
the low similarity of the goods when assessing the likelihood of
confusion.

Action brought on 29 September 2008 — SOZA v
Commission

(Case T-413/08)

(2008/C 301/93)

Language of the case: English

In support of its claims the applicant submits that:

(i) the inclusion of

territorial delineations in its reciprocal
representation agreements is not the result of a concerted
practice, and

(ii) in the alternative, if there were a concerted practice on terri-
torial delineations, it would not be restrictive of competition
within the meaning of Article 81 EC.

On the basis of its first plea, the applicant submits that the
Commission made an error of assessment and infringed
Article 81 EC as well as Article 253 EC by determining that the
parallel territorial delineation included in the reciprocal repre-
sentation agreements concluded by the applicant and the other
EEA CISAC members is the result of a concerted practice,
whereas the decision failed to provide any evidence of such a
concerted practice.

On the basis of its second plea, the applicant contends that the
alleged concerted practice on territorial delineations is not
illegal because it concerns a form of competition that is not
worthy of protection. Moreover, the applicant claims that, even
if the alleged practice should be considered to restrict competi-
tion, it does not infringe Article 81(1) EC because it is necessary
and proportionate to a legitimate objective.

Parties

(1) International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers.

Applicant: Slovenský ochranný Zväz Autorský pre práva k
hudobným dielam (SOZA) (Bratislava, Slovak Republic) (repre-
sented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

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.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application the applicant seeks partial annul-
ment 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 in particular, of its Article 3,
the EEA CISAC (1) members engaged in a
determining that
concerted practice
in violation of Article 81 EC and
Article 53 EEA by coordinating the territorial delineations of
the reciprocal representation mandates granted to one another
in a way which limits a licence to the domestic territory of each
collecting society.

Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Italy v
Commission

(Case T-426/08)

(2008/C 301/94)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato
dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities