Case T-110/01: Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Date: 2001-08-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), condiment, hotel industry, milk product

C 227/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.8.2001

the Commission,

in its assessment of

In support of its claim, the applicant pleads infringement of
Article 87(1) and (3)(c) of the EC Treaty. According to the
the aid
applicant,
awarded, did not take account of the specific, more expensive
production methods of the applicant required by the Nether-
lands authorities whereby the smell is reduced. According to
the applicant, this method of production is not obligatory in
the other Member States, as a result of which production is
cheaper. Furthermore, the applicant pleads infringement of
the Commission Decision of 6 July 1989 approving the
Bijdrageregeling
and of
Article 88 of the EC Treaty. Finally, the applicant alleges
infringement of the duty to state reasons, the principle of
legitimate expectations and the right to a fair hearing.

Proefprojecten Mestverwerking

Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A. against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Case T-110/01)

(2001/C 227/50)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A.,
established at Ludres (France), represented by Thierry van Innis
and Geert Glas, avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted on 9 March 2001 in pro-

cedure R-127/2000-1;

— order the Office to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

France Distribution

The Community trade
mark concerned:

the semi-figurative mark ‘Hubert’
— application No 108530

Goods or service con-
cerned:

various food products including
milk, other dairy products, vin-
together with
egar and sauces,
hotel
services
catering
and
(Classes 29, 30 and 42)

Trade marks objected to
in the opposition pro-
cedure:

Verbal mark ‘Saint-Hubert 41’ —
Decision of 9 March 2001 in
procedure R-127/2000-1

Proprietor of the marks
objected to:

the applicant

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

rejection of the applicant’s oppo-
sition to the application for regis-
tration of the mark ‘Hubert’

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

rejection of the appeal lodged by
the applicant

Grounds of claim:

violation of the notion of ‘likeli-
hood of confusion’ referred to in
Article 8(1)(b) of the Community
Trade Mark Regulation (1)

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

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

Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelmetalle
GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-111/01)

(2001/C 227/51)

(Language of the Case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelme-
talle GmbH, of Halsbrücke (Germany), represented by Dr Peter
von Woedtke, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities of 28 March 2001 (Decision C(2001)
1028) on the State aid granted by Germany in favour of
EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH & Co. Management KG (now
Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH, together with Zeitzer
Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte GmbH, LandTechnik Schlüter
GmbH, ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik GmbH, SKL Motoren-
und Systembautechnik GmbH, SKL Spezialapparatebau
GmbH, Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH, Saxonia Edel-
metalle GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH) —
State aid No C41/99 (EXN 49/95) Germany.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.