Case C-474/01 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on 19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-129/00 between Procter & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), trade mark

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/45

Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &
Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on
19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-129/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(Case C-474/01 P)

(2002/C 84/77)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in case T-129/00 between Procter
& Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market
(OHIM) was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,
established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.

(Trade Marks and Designs)

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the judgment;
action was dismissed;

insofar as the remainder of the

— order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance

and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

See case C-473/01 P.

(1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 25.

Action brought on 11 December 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg

the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by M. Patakia, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by maintaining the obligation for patent
agents, when providing services, either to maintain an
official place of business on Luxembourg territory or,
failing that, to maintain an official address care of an
approved agent, and by failing to supply information
concerning the precise conditions for the application of
Article 85(2) of the Law of 20 July 1992 and Articles 19
and 20 of the Law of 28 December 1988, the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 49 et seq. EC and Article 10 EC respectively;

(2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The obligation to maintain an official address, imposed
by Article 83(4) of the Law of 20 July 1992, constitutes a
restriction on the principle of freedom to provide services
as laid down by Article 49 EC, since it impedes the
activities of the service provider by causing him to bear
additional costs and obliging him to create professional
links with a local operator in the same sector, who may
even be a competitor. Moreover, that obligation is likely
to prompt foreign applicants to have recourse to the
services of patent agents established in Luxembourg.

— The fact that the detailed information requested by the
Commission has not been supplied means that it is
impossible to establish whether it is justified, even as
regards straightforward acts of an administrative nature,
to require industrial property advisers in other Member
their
States to fulfil
professional
Directive
89/48/EEC (1)). That lack of any response constitutes a
failure to collaborate within the meaning of Article 10
EC.

the criteria for recognition of
qualifications

(Council

(Case C-478/01)

(2002/C 84/78)

(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
on completion of professional education and training of at least
three years’ duration (OJ L 19 of 21.1.1989, p. 16).

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice on 11 December 2001 by