Case T-162/01: Action brought on 18 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B., S.L. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2001-10-27
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), product designation, trade mark, trade-mark law

27.10.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303/17

European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
(OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49) to the extent that that decision excludes
from that financing expenditure declared by the Irish accredited
paying agency in respect of afforestation aid — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President,
K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
an order on 25 April 2001, the operative part of which is as
follows:

2.

3.

4.

The request submitted by Poste Italiane SpA and by the
Commission for confidential treatment is granted with regard
to the interlocutory proceedings.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

Costs are reserved.

1.

2.

3.

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and shall pay those of
the Commission.

Ireland shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.00.

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

of 28 May 2001

in Case T-53/01 R: Poste Italiane SpA v Commission of
the European Communities

(Applications for interim relief — Article 86 EC in conjunc-
tion with Article 82 EC — Article 86(2) EC — Postal
services — Urgency — Balancing of interests)

(2001/C 303/29)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case T-53/01 R: Poste Italiane SpA, established in Rome,
represented by Gian Michele Roberti, Petrus Mathijsen, Ales-
sandra Perrazzelli, Elisabetta Rubini and Andrea Sandulli,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
the Commission of
the European Communities (Agents:
L. Pignataro and K. Wiedner) — application for suspension of
operation
of Commission Decision 2001/176/EC of
to
21 December 2000 concerning proceedings pursuant
Article 86 of the EC Treaty in relation to the provision of
certain new postal services with a guaranteed day- or time-
certain delivery in Italy (OJ 2001 L 63, p. 59) — the President
of the Court of First Instance made an order on 28 May 2001,
the operative part of which is as follows:

Action brought on 18 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B.,
S.L. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-162/01)

(2001/C 303/30)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
18 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B., S.L., whose registered
office is in Bigues i Riells (Spain), represented by Arturo Canela
Giménez.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market
(trade marks and designs) (OHIM) of 30 April 2001 in
Case R 122/2000-1 Giorgio Beverly Hills v Giorgi and
Others, on the ground that the disputed Community trade
mark number 417709 Giorgio Beverly Hills may not be
registered pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94;

— declare Community trade mark number 417709 Giorgio
Beverly Hills invalid or, if appropriate, refuse it regis-
tration;

— order the Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Proprietor of the Com-
munity trade mark:

Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc.

The Community trade Word mark ‘GIORGIO BEVERLY
HILLS’ — Application No 417709
mark concerned:
for goods in Class 3

1.

Recapitalia Consorzio Italiano delle Agenzie di Recapito
Licenziatarie del Ministero delle Comunicazioni and TNT Post
Groep NV are granted leave to intervene in Case T-53/01 R in
support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

Applicant

Proprietor of the right to
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

C 303/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.10.2001

Trade mark or
sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Spanish trade marks ‘J. GIORGI’,
‘MISS GIORGI’,
‘GIORGI LINE’,
registered for goods in Class 3

the performance of the INFORMS contract; consequently,
order it to pay to IDATE the sum of Euros 503 662 by
way of damages;

Dismissal of the opposition and
party bringing opposition pro-
ceedings ordered to pay costs

— in any event, order the Commission to pay the whole of
the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of the
present action.

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal and appel-
lant ordered to pay costs

Grounds of claim:

Contrary to what is stated in the
contested decision, there is likeli-
hood of confusion between the
Community trade mark and the
trade marks of which the appli-
cant is the proprietor, since the
differences between them to not
allow the consumer to differen-
tiate between them.

Action brought on 25 July 2001 by the Institut de
l’Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-171/01)

(2001/C 303/31)

(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 25 July 2001 by the Institut de
l’Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe, estab-
lished in Montpellier (France), represented by Mr Hugues
Calvet, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare and hold that ‘allowable costs’ within the meaning
of Article 1.2 of Annex II
to contract No 45504
concluded between the Commission and IDATE on
28 March 1996 covers the whole of the costs invoiced to
IDATE by the ‘partners’ under that contract and, therefore,
that the Commission is not entitled to claim from IDATE
reimbursement of the sum of Euros 503 662 under the
above contract or, more generally, any sum at all;

— in the alternative, declare and hold that the Commission
infringed its duty of good faith and its duty to inform
IDATE and thereby committed breaches of contract in

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants states that in the context of the Community
Trans-European Telecommunications Networks Programme it
concluded a contract (Contract No 45504) concerning the
INFORMS project (‘Dissemination of EuroISDN Benefits for
SMEs’) under which it agreed to organise, throughout the
Member countries of the European Union, seminars aimed at
informing and advising small and medium sized undertakings
on the possible advantages of using the EuroISDN. In view of
the size of the project, the contract called for the participation
of subcontractors (‘partners’). Under the above contract, the
Commission agreed to contribute, at the level of 50,85 %, to
the financing of the total allowable costs borne under the
contract, which include subcontracting costs.

Initially the Commission paid its contribution in respect of all
the costs invoiced to the applicant by its subcontractors under
the above contract, but after an audit of the contract it claimed
from the applicant a certain amount of the sum paid on the
ground that a part of the subcontracting costs was not covered
by the concept of allowable costs in as much as it had not
actually been paid by the applicant to the subcontractors but
is the subject matter of a set-off.

The applicant disputes that interpretation and submits that, as
regards the subcontracting costs borne under the INFORMS
contract, it was merely an intermediatory between the Com-
mission and the other partners, since it merely paid back
directly to the ‘partners’, at a rate of 50,85 % of the costs borne
by them, the sums paid by the Commission by way of
Community finance of the subcontracting in the INFORMS
project, which explains why all the subcontracting costs were
invoiced to it and why it set off the amount corresponding to
the financing which each individual
‘partner’ had to raise
(the remaining 49,15 %). The applicant submits that the
Community contribution must be calculated on the total cost
actually borne under the INFORMS contract, which means, as
regards subcontracting, the total cost borne by the ‘partners’.
That amount corresponds to the total costs invoiced to the
applicant, since, in that area, it merely centralised the accounts
and played the role of intermediatory with regard to the
Commissions contribution.