Case T-83/01: Action brought on 10 April 2001 by Merck KgaA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), pharmaceutical industry, trade mark

16.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 173/37

— the contested decision is arbitrary and disproportionate,
inasmuch as it does not analyse the possibility of
excluding from its scope part of the Normas Forales
which it envisages.

— the procedure laid down in the ‘Steel Aid Code’ was
infringed,
inter alia by exceeding the time-limit of
3 months prescribed in Article 6(5) of Decision
2496/96/ECSC.

(1) OJ 2001 L 76, p. 57.

Action brought on 10 April 2001 by Merck KgaA against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Case T-83/01)

(2001/C 173/66)

(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 10 April 2001 by Merck KgaA, a
company established under the laws of Germany, represented
by Dominique Dupuis Latour of BPDAGI, Paris (France).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Trade mark concerned:

Product or service:

OSTEOCALCIUM — registration
n. 0000955138.

‘Pharmaceutical; veterinary and
sanitary preparations’ (class 5 of
the Nice Agreement).

Decision

Refusal of registration of the trade
the Board of mark in question, because of its

Challenged
before
Appeal:

Grounds submitted:

alleged descriptive character.

Infringement of Article 7 (1) c)
and
(EC)
No 40/94.

of Regulation

b)

Action brought on 1 April 2001 by the Association
Contre l’Horaire d’E´ té against the European Parliament
and the Council of the European Union

(Case T-84/01)

(2001/C 173/67)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 2001 by
the Association Contre l’Horaire d’E´ té, established at Marly-le-
Roi (France), represented by Corinne Lepage and François
Steinmetz, avocats.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Directive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 19 January 2001 on summer-time
arrangements, published in the Official
the
European Communities on 2 February 2001.

Journal of

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case, an association formed to
draw the attention of the public to the alleged drawbacks
arising from ‘changing the clocks’, seeks annulment of Direc-
tive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 January 2001 on summer-time arrangements.

In support of its claims, the applicant maintains:

— that the wrong legal basis has been chosen (Article 95 of
inasmuch as the
formerly Article 100a),
the Treaty,
directive at issue does not satisfy the twofold condition
of participating in the approximation of the provisions
laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
Member States and having as its objective the establish-
ment and functioning of the internal market;

— that the directive at issue will result in drawbacks and
dangers to individuals, which should be seen as obstacles
to the proper functioning of the internal market.