Case T-546/08: Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Villa Almè v OHIM — Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta (i GAI)
Date: 2008-12-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), domestic market, trade-mark law, viticulture, wine

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/59

superior rule of law for the protection of the individual and
that the institutions concerned manifestly and gravely disre-
garded the limits on the exercise of their powers.

Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Total v
Commission

(1) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 478/2007 of 23 April
2007 amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 laying
down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation
(EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable
to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2007 L 111,
p. 13).

(Case T-548/08)

(2009/C 44/102)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Villa Almè v
OHIM — Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta (i GAI)

(Case T-546/08)

(2009/C 44/101)

Parties

Applicant: Total SA (Courbevoie, France)
Morgan de Rivery and A Noël-Baron, lawyers)

(represented by: E.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Form of order sought

Parties

Applicant: Villa Almè Azienda vitivinicola di Vizzotto Giuseppe
(Mansuè,
lawyer, P. Massa,
lawyer)

(represented by: G. Massa,

Italy)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas
Marqués de Murrieta, SA (Logroño, Spain)

Form of order sought

— as the main plea, annulment under Article 230 EC of the
decision of the Commission of the European Communities
No C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008, in so far as it
concerns TOTAL SA;

— in the alternative, annulment under Article 230 EC of the
fine of EUR 128 163 000 imposed jointly and severally on
TOTAL FRANCE and TOTAL SA by Article 2 of the above-
mentioned decision;

— further in the alternative, reduction of the said fine pursuant

to Article 229 EC;

— in any event, order

the Commission of

the European

Communities to pay the costs.

— Annul

the Decision of 24/09/08 of

the First Board of

Appeal (R 1695/2007-1) and order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘i GAY’ (regis-
tration application No 4.458.295) for goods in Class 33 (wines).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta S.A.

Mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Spanish word mark
and Community figurative mark
(No 2.315.558)
(No 1.707.729) and Community word mark (No 1.699.412)
‘MARQUES DE MURRIETA YGAY’,
for goods in Class 33
(wines).

‘YGAI’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

By the present action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment
of the Commission's decision C(2008) 5476 final, of 1 October
in which the
2008,
in case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes,
Commission found that certain undertakings,
including the
applicant, had infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of
the Agreement on the European Economic Area by fixing prices
and partitioning the markets for paraffin waxes in the European
Economic Area (EEA) and gatsch in Germany.

In support of its action, the applicant makes nine pleas in law,
claiming:

— infringement of the rights of the defence and the presump-
tion of the applicant's innocence, inasmuch as the contested
decision infringed the scope ratione personae of those rights
and by reason of procedural irregularities during the investi-
gation phase and circular reasoning in the decision itself;

— contradiction in reasoning as regards (i) the need to verify
whether the parent company actually exercised a decisive
the
influence over its subsidiary and (ii) the content of
control which a parent company must exercise over its
subsidiary for it to be possible to impute the infringement
to the parent company;