Case T-411/08: Action brought on 30 September 2008 — Artisjus Magyar Szerzői Jogvédő Iroda Egyesület v Commission
Date: 2008-09-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Community, Hungary, action for annulment (EU), competition, copyright, intellectual property, sectoral planning

C 301/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

Action brought on 24 September 2008 — El Fatmi v
Council

Fourth, the Council has infringed the applicant's fundamental
rights and in particular the right to respect for private and
family life, the right to effective judicial protection and the right
to property.

(Case T-409/08)

(2008/C 301/90)

Language of the case: Dutch

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001of 27 December 2001on
specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and enti-
ties with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70).
(2) Council Decision of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of
Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
directed against certain persons and entities with a view to
combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC (OJ 2008
L 188, p. 21).

(3) Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application
of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).

Parties

Applicant: El Fatmi
Pulles)

(Vught, Netherlands)

(represented by: G.

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Action brought on 30 September 2008 — Artisjus Magyar
Szerzői Jogvédő Iroda Egyesület v Commission

Form of order sought

— Declare Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 to be inapplicable
and/or declare Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July
2008 to be void, in so far as they apply to the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Parties

(Case T-411/08)

(2008/C 301/91)

Language of the case: English

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant: Artisjus Magyar Szerzői
(Budapest, Hungary)
and P. Vörös, lawyers)

Jogvédő Iroda Egyesület
(represented by: Z. Hegymegi-Barakonyi

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

the Court

The applicant asks
to declare Regulation (EC)
No 2580/2001 (1) to be inapplicable to him and Council Deci-
sion 2008/583/EC (2) to be void, in so far as it applies to the
applicant.

Form of order sought

First, the applicant submits that the Council acted contrary to
the requirements of Article 5 EC. The Council had no power,
since there is no connection to third countries or
to the
common market.

— Annul Articles 3 and 4(2) of the decision in so far as they
relate to the applicant as well as Article 4(3) of the decision
in so far as it refers to Article 3;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Second, Articles 60, 301 and 308 EC do not confer any power
to adopt the contested regulation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Third, the Council acted contrary to Article 1(3) of Common
Position 2001/931 of 27 December 2001 (3) and infringed
essential procedural requirements and principles of Community
law, including the duty to state reasons. According to the appli-
cant, the national decisions on which the Council also relies are
not decisions adopted by a competent authority within the
meaning of Article 1(4) of the Common Position or are deci-
sions that have been annulled on appeal to the national courts.

By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annul-
ment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July
2008 (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) determining that the
EEA CISAC (1) members engaged in a concerted practice in
violation of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA, by coordinating
the territorial delineations of
representation
mandates granted to one another in a way which limits a
licence to the domestic territory of each collecting society.

the reciprocal

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/55

in so far as they hold the applicant

The applicant seeks the annulment of Articles 3 and 4(2) and
(3) of the contested decision which relate to three specific forms
of exploitation (internet, satellite transmission and cable retrans-
liable for an
mission)
Article 81 EC infringement by coordinating with other CISAC
members the territorial delineation clauses of reciprocal repre-
sentation agreements in a way which limited a licence to the
domestic territory of each collective rights management societies
(‘CMRS’).

Action brought on 25 September 2008 — Trubion
Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Merck (TRUBION)

(Case T-412/08)

(2008/C 301/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

The applicant challenges the contested decision on the basis of
four grounds, namely, lack of competence, infringement of an
essential procedural
the
requirement,
EC Treaty and the misuse of powers by the Commission.

the infringement of

Parties

In support of its application, the applicant submits the following
pleas in law:

Applicant: Trubion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Seattle, United States)
(represented by: C. Hertz-Eichenrode, lawyer)

First, according to the applicant, the Commission violated the
applicant's rights of defence by adopting the contested decision
and fundamentally departing from its position in the Statement
of Objections.

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merck
KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

the

applicant

Second,
the decision infringes
Article 253 EC, as it lacks proper reasoning and fails to identify
the starting point of the alleged concerted practice.

claims

that

the

contends

applicant

Third,
the decision violates
Article 81 EC and Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) as
the Commission did not produce sufficient evidence to establish
the existence of a concerted practice to the requisite legal stand-
ard and consequently failed to meet the burden of proof.

that

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 3 July 2008 in case R 1605/2007-2; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Fourth, it is submitted that the decision violates Article 86(2)
EC, as the applicant is an undertaking entrusted with the opera-
tion of services of general economic interest and the application
of EC competition law as set out in the contested decision
obstructs the performance of the particular tasks assigned to it.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Moreover, according to the applicant, the Commission misused
its powers under Article 81 EC by evading a procedure specifi-
cally prescribed by the EC Treaty for dealing with the circum-
stances of the case. Further, the applicant puts forward that the
decision violates Article 151(4) EC as it does not respect cultural
diversity. Finally, it is submitted that the decision violates the
principle of legal certainty in so far as it requires a course of
conduct which the Commission failed to define.

(1) International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers

(‘CISAC’).

(2) 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 EC (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TRUBION’ for
goods and services in classes 5 and 42

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 72 884
of the word mark ‘BION’ registered for various goods; Com-
munity trade mark registration No 3 282 936 of the figurative
mark ‘TriBion Harmonis’ registered for various goods

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for the
goods in class 5 and rejected it for the remaining services in
class 42

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal