Case T-555/08: Action brought on 16 December 2008 — iPublish Ganske Interactive Publishing v OHIM (representation of a navigational device)
Date: 2008-12-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), satellite navigation, trade-mark law

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/35

Action brought on 16 December 2008 — iPublish Ganske
a
Interactive Publishing v OHIM (representation of

Form of order sought

navigational device)

— annul the contested decision;

(Case T-555/08)

(2009/C 55/63)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant:
(Hamburg, Germany) (represented by V. Knies, lawyer)

iPublish Ganske

Interactive

Publishing GmbH

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

Form of order sought

— annul

the decision of

the Fourth Board of Appeal of

3 October 2008 in Case R 709/2008-4 and

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional trade mark
representing a navigational device in the colours black and blue,
characterised inter alia by a blue lateral stripe, for goods and
services in Classes 9, 39 and 42 (application No 6 092 639).

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1), since the trade mark applied for has the required
distinctive character.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment
pursuant
to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision
C(2008) 5912 final of 7 October 2008 (Case COMP/39.562 —
Slovakian Postal Law) by which the Commission found Slova-
kian postal legislation relating to hybrid mail services contrary
to Article 86(1) read in conjunction with Article 82 EC to the
extent that it reserves to the applicant the delivery of hybrid
mail items.

The applicant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its
claims.

First, it submits that the Commission violated the Community
law principle of sound administration by failing to duly investi-
in the applicant's
gate all the facts and interests involved as,
opinion,
the contested decision is based on a number of
assumptions. The applicant further states that the Commission
violated the duty to state adequate reasons as laid down in
Article 253 EC.

Second, the applicant claims that the Commission violated the
applicant's right to be effectively heard.

it contends that the Commission committed manifest
Third,
errors in assessment and interpretation, in fact and in law, of
the lawfulness of the granting of exclusive rights in the postal
sector as a result of which it gave a wrong application to
Articles 86 EC and 82 EC.

Fourth, the applicant submits that by adopting a fundamentally
different and unprecedented approach with regard to the defini-
tion of the relevant market, the Commission has violated the
principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

Action brought on 17 December 2008 — Slovenská pošta
v Commission

(Case T-556/08)

(2009/C 55/64)

Action brought on 18 December 2008 — mPAY24 v
OHIM — Ultra (MPAY)

(Case T-557/08)

(2009/C 55/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Slovenská pošta a.s. (Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic)
(represented by: O. Brouwer, C. Schillemans, M. Knapen,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Applicant: mPAY24 GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H.
Z. Zeiner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ultra d.o.
o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav (Zagorje ob Savi, Slovenia)