Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2000 in Case T-175/00: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the European Communities (Action for failure to act — Articles 81 and 82 EC — No need to adjudicate — Article 86 EC — Admissibility)
Date: 2001-04-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for failure to act, physician, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment

C 108/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.4.2001

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 30 November 2000

9 January 2001 by Matratzen Concord Aktiengesellschaft,
Cologne
represented by Wolf-W. Wodrich,
Rechtsanwalt.

(Germany),

in Case T-175/00: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(Action for failure to act — Articles 81 and 82 EC — No
need to adjudicate — Article 86 EC — Admissibility)

(2001/C 108/41)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case T-175/00: Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,
Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R.St John Mur-
phy, Solicitor, 3 King’s Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London
(United Kingdom), against Commission of
the European
Communities (Agent: R. Lyal) — application for a declaration
that the Commission has failed to act by not taking a decision
on a complaint (IV/34.824 — Goldstein/GMC) against certain
anticompetitive practices,
lodged by the applicant under
Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962,
First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty
(OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87) — the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood,
Jung,
Registrar, has given an order on 30 November 2000, in which
it:

Judges; H.

1.

2.

3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the claim for a declaration of
failure to act in so far as it relates to the Commission’s failure
to act in connection with Articles 81 and 82 EC.

In so far as it is directed against the Commission’s failure to
act
the application is
inadmissible.

in connection with Article 86 EC,

The parties shall bear their own costs.

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
was Hukla Germany S.A., Castellbisbal (Spain).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted on 31 October 2000 by the
defendant (Second Board of Appeal) in joined appeals
Nos R 728/1999-2 and R 792/1999-2;

— reject the opposition entered on 21 April 1998 by the

opposing party (Case No B 32500);

— order the defendant to register the Community trade
mark (pictorial mark) ‘MATRATZEN Markt CONCORD’
(trade mark application No 395 632 of 10 October
1996) in the Register of Community trade marks;

— order the opposing party to pay all the costs and expenses
of the proceedings before the Opposition Division and
the Board of Appeal and of the present court proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com- Matratzen Concord Aktienge-
munity mark:

sellschaft

(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.00.

Trade mark applied for:

Action brought on 9 January 2001 by Matratzen Concord
Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-6/01)

(2001/C 108/42)

(Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with Article
the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the
131(2) of

application is drafted: German)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on

Proprietor of an oppos-
ing mark or of an oppos-
ing sign:

Opposing mark or sign:

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

The pictorial mark ‘MATRATZEN
Markt CONCORD’ — trade mark
application No 395 632 for goods
in Classes 10, 20 and 24

Hukla Germany S.A., Castellbis-
bal, Spain

The Spanish registered mark
‘MATRATZEN’ for goods in Class
20

Rejection of
the application in
respect of goods in Classes 20 and
24. Continuation of
the appli-
cation procedure in respect of
goods in Class 10

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Appeal of
upheld

the opposing party