Case T-86/01: Action brought on 11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2001-06-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), mechanical equipment, spare part, trade mark

30.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 186/13

— in the alternative: review the amounts accounted for in
the decision of 21 February 2001, reducing the amount
not attributed to IAMA Consulting S.r.l., to its detriment,
in each case in an amount not less than LIT 600 000 000
(six hundred million), the exact amount to be quantified
according to prudent and fair assessment;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Action brought on 11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-86/01)

(2001/C 186/20)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Language of the case: German)

The present action has been brought against the measures
adopted by the Commission on 12 February 2001 (INFSO-
3/dec0033FM/D(01)240047) and 21 February 2001 (INFO-
R2/feb0020RW/D(01)400027) respectively, with regard to
the eligibility of expenses incurred by IAMA International
Management Advisors S.r.l. and by the applicant in the context
of ESPRIT projects REGIS 22337 and REFIAG 23200, in so
far as the expenses incurred by the applicant in the periods
1 May 1996 to 31 October 1997 (Project REGIS 22337) and
1 November 1996 to 31 October 1997 (Project REFIAG
23200) are not recognised as eligible.

In support of its arguments, the applicant claims:

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
11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH, of Stuttgart (Germany),
represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted on 31 January 2001 by the
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in the
appeal
number
R 123/2000-1 concerning Community trade mark appli-
cation No 761 304;

proceedings

registered

under

— Infringement and misapplication of Articles 1362, 1366,
1368, 1370, 1374 and 1375 of the Italian Civil Code;

— order the defendant Office to pay the costs.

— Misuse of powers inasmuch as the facts were misassessed
and misrepresented. The applicant submits in this respect
that the Commission regards the applicant undertaking
as separate and autonomous from the other undertaking
mentioned above, whereas they form part of the IAMA
group, of which both are representative. Consequently,
the defendant appears to have accorded decisive import-
ance to the formal matter of IAMA Consulting S.r.l.
replacing IAMA International S.r.l., regarding it as suc-
cessor to the relationship originally entered into with
IAMA International S.r.l. only since 1 November 1997.

— Misuse of powers inasmuch as the measures are illogical,
contradictory and do not provide an adequate statement
of reasons. The applicant submits in this respect that, in
view of the fact that the two aforementioned undertakings
belong to the same group, of which the applicant is the
operational undertaking in relation to the group leader
IAMA International S.r.l., and that contracts were per-
formed in good time, it is difficult to see the objective
pursued by the Commission in penalising the IAMA
group by not finding eligible the expenses incurred by
the applicant in the performance of contracts which,
moreover, made it possible for the prescribed objectives
to be fully attained.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

the applicant

The trade mark con-
cerned:

Goods or service con-
cerned:

the verbal mark ‘Kit Super Pro’

goods and services in Class 12
(parts for repairing drum brakes
in land vehicles)

Decision
before
Appeal:

contested
the Board of

refusal of the application for regis-
tration of the mark

Grounds of claim:

— The mark is not descriptive
within
of
Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1).

the meaning

— There is no need to keep the

mark free.

— The mark possesses the mini-
mum level of distinctiveness
necessary for trade-mark pro-
tection.

C 186/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.6.2001

— Registration of the mark in
question would accord with
the
the other
decision-making practice fol-
lowed by
the Boards of
Appeal.

aspects of

— Infringement,

alternatively
misinterpretation,
of
Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regu-
lation No 40/94.

Pleas in law and principal arguments

in
The applicant pleads, with reference to the judgment
Antillean Rice Mills, that safeguard measures must be of a
temporary nature. It maintains that no assessment whatever
has been carried out, let alone any examination of the need for
an extension.

For the rest, the pleas in law and main arguments are analogous
to those in Cases T-94/00 and T-332/00.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

(1) What is meant is Commission Regulation (EC) No 396/2001 of
27 February 2001 providing for the continued application of
safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries and
territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of
origin for the period 1 March to 30 June 2001 (OJ L 58 of
28.2.2001, p. 13).

Action brought on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-87/01)

(2001/C 186/21)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV, established at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by
G. van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Regulation No 376/2001 (1);

— rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered
by the applicant as a result of the fact that, since 1 March
2001, the importation of the products referred to in
Regulation No 376/2001 has been prevented or restricted
in consequence of that regulation, and order that the
parties should seek to reach agreement on the extent of
the damage suffered by the applicant, and that, if no such
agreement is reached, the proceedings are to be resumed
within a time-limit to be specified by the Court, with a
view to determining the quantum of the damage, and
further order the Community to pay the damages pro-
visionally quantified and yet to be quantified, alternatively
to pay such compensation as the Court may deem fair
and equitable, together with interest thereon at the rate
of 8 % per annum from the date of the application until
payment in full;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Action brought on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A. against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-88/01)

(2001/C 186/22)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A.,
established in Madrid, represented by José Luis Baro´ Fuentes,
Miguel Angel Go´ mez de Lian˜ o y Botella and Fernando
Rodrı´guez Carretero, abogados.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1 of the decision of 19 July 2000, inasmuch
as it establishes that the provision of guarantees amount-
ing to EUR 35,80 million does not constitute State aid
within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty;

— annul Article 2 of the decision, inasmuch as it establishes
that the aid granted by Austria to LLG through the
provision of a guarantee amounting to EUR 14,5 million
by WiBAG complies with the guarantee guidelines
approved by the Commission under number No 542/95;

— annul Article 3 of the decision, inasmuch as it establishes
that the individual aid which Austria has granted in the
form of aid amounting to EUR 0,4 million for land
acquisition and in the form of equity capital amounting
to EUR 21,8 million is compatible with the common
market;