Case T-489/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Insight Direct USA v OHIM — Net Insight (Insight)
Date: 2008-12-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, United States, information technology industry, trade-mark law

C 44/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2009

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision;

— annul or reduce the amount of the fine imposed;

— order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

to Article 230 EC of

By means of this application, the applicants seek annulment
pursuant
the Commission Decision
C(2008) 5955 final of 15 October 2008 (Case COMP/39.188
— Bananas) relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC
which held them liable for participating in a concerted practice
of coordination of quotation prices for bananas imported to the
eight Member States of the Northern European region of the
Community. They also seek the annulment or the reduction of
the fine imposed on them.

In support of their claims, the applicants put forward two pleas.

First, the applicants submit that the Commission erred in deter-
mining that the conduct at issue was a restriction of competi-
tion by object under Article 81 EC. The applicants contend that
in fact, the conduct at issue consisted exclusively in occasional
bilateral communications between banana importers involving
general market gossip and did not form part of a broader price-
fixing or market-sharing cartel and was thus not a restriction of
competition by object. These communications took place prior
to the setting of quotation prices that is at a stage far removed
from the negotiation of actual prices with customers. Further
the applicants state that these communications were not, and
could not be, to restrict competition in the banana market since
quotation prices are not actual prices and do not form the basis
for the negotiation of actual prices of green bananas.

Second, the applicants claim that the fine imposed on them was
unjustified because the basic amount of the fine is based on the
value of sales of goods to which the alleged infringement does
not relate. Further, the applicants argue that the fine was also
the fine was
disproportionate because the basic amount of
wrongly set on the premise that the conduct concerned price-
fixing.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008
— Plant and Others v Commission

(Case T-324/07) (1)

(2009/C 44/115)

Language of the case: English

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

(1) OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008
— Insight Direct USA v OHIM — Net Insight (Insight)

(Case T-489/07) (1)

(2009/C 44/116)

Language of the case: English

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

(1) OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 December 2008
— iTouch International v OHIM — Touchnet Information
Systems (iTouch)

(Case T-347/08) (1)

(2009/C 44/117)

Language of the case: English

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

(1) OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.