Case T-464/08: Action brought on 13 October 2008 — Zeta Europe v OHIM (Superleggera)
Date: 2008-10-13
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Netherlands, action for annulment (EU), motor vehicle, motor vehicle industry, trade-mark law

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/53

According to the applicant
the contested decision infringes
Article 151(4) EC in that the Commission did not sufficiently
take into account the consequences for cultural diversity in
Europe in requiring termination of the alleged concerted prac-
tice on the territorial delineation of mandates granted by EEA
collecting societies to other EEA collecting societies to issue
licences of their repertoire for satellite, cable and internet use.
Moreover,
the decision will harm
cultural diversity in Europe, since authors of music of a less
extensive cultural appeal will lose the certainty they have under
the current system, that their music will be licensed and that
revenues will be received in respect of all the territories in
which their music may be performed.

the applicant claims that

The applicant further submits that the Commission should have
taken into account the fact that the restriction of competition it
identified is fictitious or, at most, marginal. In deed, in the appli-
cant's submission, there is no restriction of competition within
the meaning of Article 81(1) EC. Hence, the applicant claims
that the Commission committed an error of law, or a manifest
error of appreciation, when applying the aforementioned provi-
sion. Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission could
have lawfully exempted the concerted practice pursuant
to
Article 81(3) EC. By not doing so, it needlessly caused harm to
cultural diversity in Europe.

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

Action brought on 10 October 2008 — Commission v
Acentro Turismo

(Case T-460/08)

(2008/C 313/94)

Language of the case: Italian

— order that company to pay the sum of EUR 2 278,55 in
lodging of the
default interest payable up to the date of
present application, and default
interest which will be
payable after the date of lodging of this application up to
the date of the actual payment of the capital, to be quanti-
fied ultimately on the basis of the interest rate established by
Italian law;

— order that company to pay default interest on the aforesaid
interest payable up to the date of lodging of the present
application, to be quantified ultimately on the basis of the
interest rate established by Italian law;

— order that company to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

to order

By the present application the European Commission, as
the European Atomic Energy Community
representative of
the company incor-
the Court
(Euratom), asks
porated under Italian law, Acentro Turismo SpA, to pay the sum
of EUR 13 497,46, plus default interest, owed on the basis of
the rules
relating to performance laid down by contract
No 349-90-04 TL ISP I for the provision of services, concluded
in 1990 and intended to give that company the functions of
travel agent on the Ispra site.

The Commission submits in that regard that Acentro did not
honour two invoices, issued by the Commission itself on the
basis of Article 8 of the contested contract, and that the exis-
tence of that credit is sufficiently proven with regard to the
content of that contract and the credit in question is therefore
irrefutable, liquid and collectable.

Action brought on 13 October 2008 — Zeta Europe v
OHIM (Superleggera)

(Case T-464/08)

(2008/C 313/95)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Aresu, A. Caeiros, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Acentro Turismo SpA (Milan, Italy)

Parties

Form of order sought

Applicant: Zeta Europe BV (Het Ambacht, Netherlands) (repre-
sented by V. Bilardo, C. Bacchini and M. Mazzitelli, lawyers)

— order Acentro Turismo SpA to pay

the

sum of

EUR 13 497,46 by way of capital;

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

C 313/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.12.2008

Form of order sought

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 73 and 74 of Regu-
lation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of
17 July 2008 in Case R 666/2008-1 concerning the appli-
cant;

— order OHIM to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Superleggera’
(Community trade mark application No 5.456.207) for goods
in Classes 12, 18 and 25.

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application for registra-
tion, having noted that the mark in question consists of the
adjective ‘superleggera’ and that that will therefore be under-
stood as a descriptive indication of the weight of goods.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 October 2008 —
Stephens v Commission

(Case T-438/03) (1)

(2008/C 313/96)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case
be removed from the register.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

(1) OJ C 47, 21.2.2004.