Case T-334/01: Action brought on 24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfelde GmbH, Unternehmen für Ernährung, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2002-03-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Germany, action for annulment (EU), animal nutrition, trade mark, trade-mark law

16.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 68/17

— grant the applicant a period of 12 months to submit

The applicant claims that the Court should:

figures for its claims;

— order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a smallholder in French Polynesia, where he
suffered damage as a result of the non-compliance in that
territory with Council Decisions 86/283/EEC (1)
and
91/482/EEC (2) on the association of the PTOMs. The applicant
claims that the Commission has not fulfilled its obligations in
that it has not monitored sufficiently closely the local auth-
orities in French Polynesia and the SOCREDO development
bank with regard to compliance with Community law and
has not required the application and publication of
the
abovementioned Council decisions. The Commission has thus
infringed the principle of good administration and the principle
of good faith. Moreover, the applicant complains that he
has been discriminated against by comparison with other
smallholders in French Polynesia.

(1) Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 on the association
of the overseas countries and territories with the European
Economic Community (OJ 1986 L 175, p. 1).

(2) 91/482/EEC: Council Decision of 25 July 1991 on the association
of the overseas countries and territories with the European
Economic Community (OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1).

Action brought on 24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfel-
de GmbH, Unternehmen für Ernährung, against the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs)

(Case T-334/01)

(2002/C 68/30)

(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
been drafted: German)

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
24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfelde GmbH, Unternehmen
für Ernährung, of Hamburg (Germany), represented by Sabine
Rojahn and Stefan Freytag, lawyers. A further party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Chassot AG of
Belp (Switzerland).

— annul the decision adopted on 26 September 2001 by
the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
and opposition decision No 601/2000 of 28 March
2000;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Chassot AG

The Community trade
mark applied for:

the verbal mark ‘HIPOVITON’ for
goods in Class 31 (feedingstuffs)

Proprietor of the trade-
mark right opposed in
the opposition proceed-
ings:

Trade-mark right oppo-
sed:

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Grounds of claim:

the applicant

the German verbal mark ‘HIPPO-
VIT’
in Class 31
(feedingstuffs)

for goods

rejection of the opposition

rejection of the applicant’s appeal

— infringement of Articles 8
and 15 of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1);

— misinterpretation of Arti-
cle 15 of the regulation;

— violation of the right to a fair

hearing;

— infringement of the first and
of
the regu-

second
Article 74(1) of
lation;

sentences

— infringement of Article 73 of

the regulation.

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

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