8.7.2000 EN C 192/25 Official Journal of the European Communities
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should: Pleas in law and main arguments
— Annul Commission Decision 2000/128/EC of 11 MayTrademark concerned: Three dimensional trademark in
1999 of 11 May 1999 concerning aid granted by Italy to the form of tablets — Application
promote employment published in Official Journal of theNo 949610European Communities L 42 of 15 February 2000;
Product or Service: Products in Class 3 of the Nice
— In the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 2 of the operative Agreement (in particular, washing
part of the Decision, to the extent to which they do not and bleaching preparations for
exclude from the declaration of incompatibility with laundry use; cleaning prep-
the common market other types of financial aid for arations, preparations for the
employment which are shown in the present proceedings washing of dishes, soaps, per-
to be compatible with the common market; consequently, fumery, essential oils, cosmetics,
annul in respect of the same types of financial aid for hair lotions, dentifrices)
employment Article 3 of the operative part of the Decision
in so far as it improperly requires recovery of the aid Contested decision Refusal of registration by the
already paid; before the Board of examiner
Appeal:
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Grounds for appeal: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
Regulation 40/94.
Contentions and main arguments adduced in support
The contentions and principal arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case T-124/00 FAID Federdistribuzione and
Others v Commission.
Action brought on 12 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble
Company against the Office for Harmonization in the
Internal Market
(Case T-129/00)
Action brought on 12 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble (2000/C 192/48)
Company against the Office for Harmonization in the
Internal Market
(Language of the case: English)
(Case T-128/00)
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the(2000/C 192/47)European Communities on 12 May 2000 by The Procter &
Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen andG. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,
(Language of the case: English) Netherlands.
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal The applicant claims that the Court should:
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 May 2000 by The Procter & — annul Decision R508/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal
Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and of the OHIM of 8 March 2000, in so far as it finds that the
G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague, Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in
Netherlands. Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and
— order the OHIM to pay the costs.The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Decision R506/1999-1 of the First Board of AppealPleas in law and main argumentsof the OHIM of 8 March 2000, in so far as it finds that the
Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in
Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and Trademark condensed: Three dimensional trademark in
the form of tablets — Application
No 949990 — order the OHIM to pay the costs.
C 192/26 EN 8.7.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
Product or Service: Products in Class 3 of the Nice Pleas in law and main arguments
Agreement (in particular, washing
and bleaching preparations for— Adipex Retard capsules are placed on the market solely onlaundry use; cleaning prep-the basis of a national Austrian authorisation, for thearations, preparations for thegrant of which the mutual recognition procedure underwashing of dishes, soaps, per-Chapter III of Directive 75/319 (1) was not applied. Thefumery, essential oils, cosmetics,defendant was therefore not competent to adopt thehair lotions, dentifrices)contested decision.
Contested decision Refusal of registration by the— The Commission wrongly based its decision on Article 15abefore the Board of examinerof Directive 75/319 and the criteria in Article 5 of DirectiveAppeal:65/65 (2). In fact only Article 11 of Directive 65/65/EEC is
material, however.
Grounds for appeal: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
Regulation 40/94.— The conditions for withdrawal of authorisation are not
satisfied. It has not been sufficiently established either thatphentermin is harmful or that it lacks therapeutic effect if
correctly used.
(1) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the
approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation oradministrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products(OJ 1975 L 147, p. 13).
(
2) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-Action brought on 17 May 2000 by Gerot Pharmazeutikamation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrat-GmbH against the Commission of the European Com- ive action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ, English
munities Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20).
(Case T-132/00)
(2000/C 192/49)
Action brought on 22 May 2000 by Cambridge Healthcare (Language of the case: German)
Supplies Limited against the Commission of the European
Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the(Case T-137/00)European Communities on 17 May 2000 by Gerot Pharmazeu-
tika GmbH, of Vienna, represented by Dr Karl Grigkar,
Rechtsanwalt, Vienna. (2000/C 192/50)
The applicant claims that the Court should:(Language of the case: English)
— annul Commission Decision K (2000) 452 of 9 March
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- 2000 on withdrawal of authorisation of medicinal prod-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the ucts for human use which contain the substance phen-
European Communities on 22 May 2000 by Cambridge termin, in particular with respect to the medicinal product
Healthcare Supplies Limited, represented by David Vaughan, Adipex Retard capsules authorised for the applicant; in
Q.C., Kelyn Bacon, Barrister, and Simon Davis, Solicitor, eventu
Clifford Chance, London.
— annul the Commission’s decision in so far as Article 1 in
The applicant claims that the Court should: conjunction with Annex I thereof requires the Member
State Austria to withdraw the authorisation for the appli-
cant’s medicinal product containing phentermin, namely — annul Commission Decision C(2000)452, of 9 March
Adipex Retard capsules; 2000;
— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. — order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.