Case T-448/08: Action brought on 29 September 2008 — FIFA v OHIM — Ferrero (WORLD CUP 2006 GERMANY)
Date: 2008-09-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), confectionery product, consumer protection, professional sport, trade-mark law

C 313/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.12.2008

Action brought on 29 September 2008 — FIFA v OHIM —
Ferrero (WORLD CUP 2006 GERMANY)

(Case T-448/08)

(2008/C 313/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Fédération Internationale de Football Association
(FIFA) (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Alexander QC,
A. Barav, Barrister, R. Buchel and C. Rassmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferrero
OHG mbH (Stadtallendorf, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul, in whole or in part, the decision of the First Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 June 2008 in case
R 1470/2005-1; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the application for a
Registered Community trade mark subject of
declaration of
invalidity: The word mark ‘WORLD CUP 2006
GERMANY’ for goods and services in classes 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,
11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41
and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 2 047 843

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade
mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application
for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the
Cancellation Division

Pleas in law: (i) Infringement of Article 73 and 74(1) of Council
Regulation No 40/94 in so far as the Board of Appeal has
based, largely, its decision on Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94, a provision which was neither invoked by the
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, nor
relied upon by the Cancellation Division;
(ii) Alternatively,
infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94
as the Board of Appeal failed to consider the registered Com-

through the eyes of

invalidity as a whole,

munity trade mark subject of the application for a declaration
of
the average
consumer and to apply the relevant law relating to the assess-
ment of descriptiveness of the goods and/or services applied for;
and (iii) Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation
No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the
registered Community trade mark subject of the application for
a declaration of invalidity was devoid of the necessary distinctive
character.

Action brought on 2 October 2008 — Stim v Commission

(Case T-451/08)

(2008/C 313/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musik-
byrå
(represented by:
(Stockholm, Sweden)
C. Thomas, Solicitor and N. Pourbaix, lawyer)

(Stim) u.p.a.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Articles 3 and 4(2), and Article 4(3) to the extent
that it refers to Article 3, of the Commission decision of
16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC
and Article 53 EEA in case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC;

— Order the Commission to pay the applicant's 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.

In support of its claims the applicant submits the following: