Case T-183/01: Action brought on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
Date: 2001-11-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), pharmaceutical industry, trade-mark law

C 317/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.11.2001

In this case the applicant is bringing an action for failure to act
and annulment.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its claims, the applicant asserts:

— infringement of Articles 4(b), 86 and 88 of the ECSC
Treaty. It is alleged in this respect that the imposition on
ECSC undertakings of charges which,
in the case of
Charbonnages de France, will be directly or indirectly
financed, whereas the applicant, a private company, will
have to meet them in the absence of any commercial
production, constitutes discrimination contrary to the
ECSC Treaty;

— infringement of essential procedural requirements by

failure to state reasons;

— lack of competence, since it does not appear from the
letter of 10 July 2001 that the decision which it contains
was formally taken by the Commission and that its
signatory was authorised to sign it;

— breach of the principle of sound administration.

(1) Sacilor Lorminesv Commission (not yet published in the Official

Journal).

The applicant in the present case objects to her non-inclusion
on the list of successful candidates drawn up in the context of
the Notice of a selection process for temporary members of
staff COM/R/A/01/1999 for the management of Research and
Technological Development programmes.

In support of her claims the applicant alleges:

— The infringement of the duty to state reasons and the

principle of openness;

— The infringement of the Selection Process Notice and the
rules governing the composition of a selection board;

— The infringement of the principles of sound adminis-
tration and equal treatment, in that the identity and the
professional and administrative situation of the members
of the Selection Committee were disclosed only to certain
candidates.

Action brought on 3 August 2001 by Sophie Bachotet
against the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation
against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market

(Case T-182/01)

(2001/C 317/55)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-183/01)

(2001/C 317/56)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 August 2001 by Sophie Bachotet,
in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
resident
lawyers, with an address for service in
Véronique Peere,
Luxembourg.

An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation,
represented by Michael Edenborough, Hogarth Chambers,
London (UK).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Selection Committee COM/
R/A/01/1999 to award the applicant a mark that was not
sufficient to allow her to be included on the reserve list;

— order the defendent to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions of the Board of Appeal and the
Opposition Division in so far as they concern the
application for registration of the applicant’s mark for the
goods in Class 5; and as a consequence, order that the
Office should allow the applicant’s mark to proceed to
registration for the goods in Class 5;

10.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 317/29

— in the alternative, annul the decisions of the Board of
Appeal and the Opposition Division in so far as they
concern the application for registration of the applicant’s
mark for the goods in Class 5; and order that the
application in respect of the amended specification for
the goods in Class 5 be referred back to the Opposition
Division for further consideration;

— order that the applicant’s costs of defending the original
opposition and of prosecuting the appeal before the
Board of Appeal and of prosecuting this appeal before
the Court of First Instance be paid to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Corporation, Mountain

Alza
View, California, U.S.A.

The Community trade
mark concerned:

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

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

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

The word mark ‘E-TRANS’
for
certain goods in Classes 5, 10
and 42 (e.g. pharmaceutical and
veterinary preparations and sub-
stances)
application
No. 120089

—

Hexal AG, Holzkirchen, Germany

German

The
trade mark
‘ESTRANS’ for certain goods in
Class 5

Partial accept of the opposition,
insofar as it relates to pharmaceut-
ical and veterinary preparations
and substances (Class 5)

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Grounds of claim:

— The goods covered by the
two marks are different;

— there is no likelihood of con-

fusion; and

— Article 8(1)(b) of Regu-
lation 40/94 (1) is not appli-
cable.

Action brought on 4 August 2001 by Dominique Ramae-
kers against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-185/01)

(2001/C 317/57)

(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 4 August 2001 by Dominique
Ramaekers, resident in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium), represent-
ed by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the selection board for the Research
selection COM/R/A/01/1999 to award her a mark that
was not sufficient to allow her to be included on the
reserve list;

— in so far as necessary, annul the subsequent decision of
the Selection Committee and of the AECE establishing
the reserve list
the Research selection process
for
COM/R/A/01/1999;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case objects to her non-inclusion
on the reserve list of successful candidates in the context of
the Notice of a selection process for temporary members of
staff COM/R/A/01/1999 for the management of Research and
Technological Development programmes.

The pleas and main arguments are those put forward in Case
T-182/01 Bachotet v Commission (1).

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

(1) Not yet published in the OJEC.

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