Case T-360/00: Action brought on 25 November 2000 by Dart Industries Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Date: 2001-02-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), plastics industry, trade mark, trade-mark law

C 45/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.2.2001

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, Article 2(2) of, and
the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1926/2000
of 11 September 2000 and Article 2(2) of, and the annex
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1103/2000 of 25 May
2000 providing for the granting of compensation to
producers’ organisations in respect of tuna delivered to
the processing industry from 1 October to 31 December
1999 (OJ 2000 L 125, p. 18 and OJ 2000 L 230, p. 10);

provides compensation which offsets and stabilises the income
of fishery producers can only mean that, whenever a producer
switches from one producers’ organisation to another, the
bases for calculation laid down in Article 18(4) of the basic
regulation must be amended to the same extent.

The applicant further alleges misuse of powers by the Com-
mission.

— in the alternative, annul such articles and annexes on the
ground that the Commission misused its powers when
interpreting Article 18 of the basic regulation;

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3318/94 of 22 December 1994
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92 on the common organ-
ization of the market in fishery products and aquaculture (OJ
1994 L 350, p. 15).

— order the Commission to provide for a new regulation
correcting the tonnage distributed between OPAGAC and
OPTUC in view of changes in their respective tonnage;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant organisation explains, first and foremost, that
its composition changed on 1 July 1998 when it was joined
by two undertakings which had previously been part of
APTUC, another tuna producers’ organisation. Since then, the
registered tonnage and catches of the applicant organisation
has increased, thus changing the basis for calculating the
compensation laid down in the basic regulation (1).

Following publication of Regulation No 1103/2000, cited
above, the applicant became aware of the fact that compen-
sation had been distributed among producers’ organisations
without account being taken of changes to tonnages by
associations, so it then made the appropriate approaches to
the Spanish and Union authorities.

Without resolving the matter of allocations for the third
the Commission adopted Regulation
quarter of 1999,
No 1926/2000, cited above, in which the allocations are, in
the view of the applicant, also erroneous.

To date, the Commission has still not replied to the request of
the Secretarı´a General de Pesca Marı´tima for the correct
interpretation of the applicable legislation, so that the applicant
is obliged to seek the interpretation of the basic regulations
implied in the articles of and annexes to the regulations
providing for compensation in respect of the period running
from 1 October to 31 December 1999.

In support of its application, the applicant alleges infringement
by the contested provisions of Article 18(4) of Regulation
No 3579/92, cited above. In its view, the fact that the measure

Action brought on 25 November 2000 by Dart Industries
Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market

(Case T-360/00)

(2001/C 45/47)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 November 2000 by Dart
Industries Inc., represented by Kay-Uwe Jonas of Oppenhoff &
Rädler (Cologne) Germany.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision R 278/2000-1 of 22 Sep-

tember 2000;

— order that the Application No. 716597 ‘UltraPlus’ be
referred back to OHIM to be published in accordance
with CTMR Article 40 in respect of all the goods claimed
therein;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

10.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 45/23

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Trade Mark concerned:

Word mark ‘UltraPlus’ — Appli-
cation No. 716597

Product or Service:

Class 21 (plastic ovenware for
use in microwave, convection and
conventional ovens)

Contested
before
Appeal:

Decision
the Board of

Refusal of
examiner

registration by the

Pleas in law relied on:

Infringement of Article 7 (1) (b)
and (c) of Regulation 40/94.

The applicant in this case, the same as in Case T-91/00 (1),
challenges the refusal of the Settlements Office of the Joint
Sickness Insurance Scheme in Luxembourg to reimburse sums
incurred by him in the first half of the year 2000, on care
services needed by one of his sons, as assistance by medical
auxiliaries within the meaning of Paragraph 1 of Title X of
Annex I to the Rules on Sickness Insurance. The Settlements
Office authorised those services only as nursing attendance
within the meaning of Paragraph 2(c) and (d) of those rules.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
raised in Case T-91/00.

(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000, p. 24.

Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Adolfo Kind
against the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Ma´rio Campo-
largo against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-362/00)

(2001/C 45/48)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Adolfo
Kind, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the measures

erroneous application of
adopted;

challenged for unlawful
the system of

and
repayment

(Case T-372/00)

(2001/C 45/49)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 December 2000 by Ma´rio
Campolargo, residing at Kraainem (Belgium), represented by
Carlos Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the appointing authority’s decision of 15 February
2000 annulling the appointment of the applicant as head
of the former unit DG XIII/G/2 and his promotion to
grade A3, and the appointing authority’s implicit decision
of 12 September 2000 giving a negative response to the
complaint submitted by the applicant;

— order the Commission to carry out settlement, as in the
past, on the basis of invoices in respect of expenses for
paramedical assistance produced by the insured;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— order

the defendant

to pay the costs pursuant

to
Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
First Instance and the expenses necessarily incurred for
the purposes of the proceedings, in particular the travel
and subsistence expenses and the remuneration of law-
yers, pursuant to Article 91(b) of those Rules.