Case T-569/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Visonic v OHIM — Sedea Electronique (VISIONIC)
Date: 2008-12-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), electrical equipment, screen, trade-mark law

C 55/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.3.2009

Action brought on 17 December 2008 — M6 v
Commission

(Case T-568/08)

(2009/C 55/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

— a failure to state grounds, in so far as the Commission (i) did
not sufficiently justify the importance given in the contested
decision to the effect of the presidential announcement of
8 January 2008 which referred to the abolition of adver-
tising on the public channels, (ii) failed to take into consid-
eration the influence, on advertising regulation, of the ‘refo-
cusing’ of France Télévisions' activities towards those of a
public service and (iii) did not take into consideration the
responses of private operators, including the applicant.

Applicant: Métropole Télévision SA (M6)
France)
lawyers)

(Neuilly-sur-Seine,
(represented by: O. Freget and N. Chahid-Nouraï,

Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Visonic v OHIM
— Sedea Electronique (VISIONIC)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-569/08)

(2009/C 55/72)

Form of order sought

Language in which the application was lodged: English

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 16 July
2008 in Case N 279/2008-France (Capital endowment for
France Télévisions);

Parties

— require the Commission to initiate the formal investigation
procedure under the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC
in respect of State aid;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant applies for the annulment of Commission Deci-
sion C(2008) 3506 final of 16 July 2008, by which the
Commission had held State aid in the form of a capital endow-
ment of EUR 150 million in favour of France Télévisions to be
compatible with the common market. The applicant requests in
that context the initiation of the formal investigation procedure
in accordance with Article 88(2) EC.

In support of its application, the applicant raises three pleas
concerning the lawfulness of the contested decision alleging:

— a breach of the applicant's procedural rights, in so far as the
Commission's assessment, and especially that relating to the
direct causal link between the announcement of the Presi-
dent of the French Republic of 8 January 2008 concerning
the abolition of commercial advertising on the channels of
the France Télévisions group and the loss of income suffered
by those channels, would create difficulties such as to justify
the initiation of
investigation procedure in
accordance with Article 88(2) EC so that the competitors of
the France Télévisions group could set out their position;

the formal

— a failure of the Commission to provide adequate information
concerning the cause of the loss of advertising revenue and
intended use of the capital endowment granted to France
Télévisions, in so far as the Commission did not verify with
the required neutrality,
impartiality and thoroughness the
truth and reliability of the information which was communi-
cated to it concerning the real causes of France Télévisions'
advertising losses and the final use to which the sums paid
by the French Republic to France Télévisions were to be put;

Applicant: Visonic Ltd (Tel Aviv,
Beschorner and C. Thomas, lawyers)

Israel)

(represented by: A.

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sedea
Electronique SA (Seclin, France)

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 14 October 2008 in joined cases
R 946/2007-2 and R 1151/2007-2;

— Declare Community trade mark No 1 562 982 ‘VISIONIC’

invalid in respect of all the goods concerned;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings
before the court and the other party to the proceedings
before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the adminis-
trative proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

— Set a date for an oral hearing in this case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of
the application for a
declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘VISIONIC’ for goods in
class 9

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade
mark: The applicant

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/41

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partly upheld the request for
a declaration of invalidity

In the first, second and third pleas, the applicant submits that
the decision should be annulled on the grounds of an infringe-
ment of essential rules as to form and procedure, in that

the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal

Decision of
in case
R 946/2007-2; Annulled the contested decision rejecting the
cancellation
case
R 1151/2007-2.

request; Dismissed

appeal

the

in

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 52(3), 8(1)(b) of Council
Regulation 40/94, as well as of general principles of trade mark
law as the Board of Appeal wrongly ruled that the applicant
gave its consent to the registration of the Community trade
mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity
and, as a result, failed to examine whether a likelihood of confu-
sion between the trade marks concerned exists.

Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Deutsche Post v
Commission

(Case T-570/08)

(2009/C 55/73)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by:
J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— the requirements as to the valid setting of a time-limit and
as to a ‘reminder, allowing an appropriate additional period’
in accordance with Articles 5(2) and 10(3) of Regulation
No 659/1999 were not satisfied;

— the information injunction exhibits serious failings in regard
infringes

to the obligation to state reasons and thus
Article 253 EC;

— the Commission failed,

contrary to Articles 287 EC
and 10 EC, to give the Federal Government and the appli-
cant an opportunity to submit comments on the protection
of the applicant's business secrets.

By its fourth plea in law, the applicant claims that the contested
decision should, moreover, be annulled on the grounds of an
infringement of substantive Community law, because the use of
the requested data concerning costs and revenues in respect of
the period from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 2007 for the
purposes of examining the ‘financial compensation’ conflicts
with the 2005 Community Framework and with the division of
powers between Member States and the Commission; infringes
Articles 86(2) EC and 87(1) EC in conjunction with the princi-
ples of proportionality, legal certainty and the Community-law
prohibition of discrimination; and, finally,
is manifestly inap-
propriate for
in terms of State-aid law of
the assessment
pension and liability provisions.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999
L 83, p. 1).

Form of order sought

Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Germany v
Commission

— Annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities of 30 October 2008 concerning the informa-
tion injunction in the proceedings ‘State aid C-36/2007 —
State aid to Deutsche Post AG’;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

in State

The action is directed against the decision of the Commission of
the European Communities (C (2008) 6468) of 30 October
2008 by which,
aid procedure C 36/2007
(ex NN 25/2007), the Commission required Germany, pursuant
to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1), to send all
the documents, information and data required in order to assess
the costs and revenues of Deutsche Post in the period from
1989 to 2007.

(Case T-571/08)

(2009/C 55/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant:
M. Lumma and B. Klein)

Federal Republic of Germany (represented by:

The applicant raises four pleas in law.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities