Case T-80/02: Action brought on 19 March 2002 by Tetra Laval B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-06-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), economic concentration, merger control, packaging product, plastics industry, pulp and paper industry

29.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 156/27

Action brought on 14 March 2002 by Classen Holding
KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market

Action brought on 19 March 2002 by Tetra Laval B.V.
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-71/02)

(2002/C 156/53)

(Case T-80/02)

(2002/C 156/54)

(Language of the case: English)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 March 2002 by Classen Holding
KG, represented by Mr Stephan von Petersdorff-Campen of
Rospatt Osten Pross Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf (Germany).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 March 2002 by Tetra Laval
B.V., represented by Mr Alexandre Vandencasteele and Mr
Denis Waelbroeck (Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff), Mr
Andreas Weitbrecht, (Latham & Watkins) and Mr Sven Völcker
(Wilmer Cutler & Pickering) of Brussels (Belgium).

— annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office dated 14 December 2001 (Appeal No. R0810/
1999-2), registered letter of notification of the Decision
received on 14 January 2002;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested Decision in its entirety;

— order the Office to bear the costs of the action.

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant of the Com-
munity trade mark:

Trade mark concerned:

International Paper Company

BECKET
mark
Word
EXPRESSION — Application No
93880 for
in
class 16

certain goods

Proprietor of an oppos-
ing trade mark or sign:

Classen Holding KG

Opposing trade mark or Word mark Expression for certain
sign:

goods in class 16

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Pleas in law relied on:

Rejection of the opposition

To declare the appeal inadmissible
and reject the request for restitutio
in integrum

Incorrect interpretation of Article
78 of Council Regulation No 40/
94 — Infringement of the appli-
cant’s right to due process of law

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant
in the present case is primarily active in
carton packaging. It envisaged a concentration with another
company, Sidel, mainly active in (polyester) packaging equip-
ment. This concentration was declared to be incompatible
with the common market and the EEA Agreement by the
Commission. The applicant has introduced an application for
annulment of this Decision (Case T-5/02; Communication
published in OJ C 68, p. 19).

In the present case, the applicant contests the decision of the
Commission to oblige the applicant to sell Sidel as a measure
taken to restore the conditions of effective competition
pursuant to Article 8(4) of Council Regulation 4064/89 (1)
(Merger Control Regulation).

The applicant submits in the first place that the contested
Decision is devoid of any basis, as it is the direct consequence
of the earlier Decision declaring the concentration incompat-
ible with the common market. This earlier Decision being void
itself, according to the applicant, it cannot serve as basis for
the Decision contested in this case. The applicant refers in this
respect to the pleas and arguments stated in its application in
case T-5/02.

C 156/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.6.2002

The applicant further submits that Article 8 (4) of the Merger
Control regulation, which constitutes the legal basis of the
present Decision, is only applicable where a concentration has
been implemented. The applicant states, however, that the
concentration in this case has not been implemented in any
way.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Communuity Trade
Mark concerned:

SECURECLIENT

the applicant argues that

Thirdly,
the modalities for the
divestiture constitute an infringement of Community law.
According to the applicant,
these modalities are dispro-
portionate and exceed the Commission’s competences under
Article 8(4) of the Merger Control Regulation.

The applicant finally claims that the Commission has failed to
respect the applicant’s procedural rights, in that the Com-
mission did not respect the applicant’s right to be heard and
relied on information not provided to the applicant.

Product or service:

‘Computer software to protect
systems
from unauthorised
access’, in International Class 9.

Challenged
before
Appeal:

Decision
the Board of

Refusal of
Examiner.

registration by the

Grounds submitted:

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
and (c) of Regulation No 40/94.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of
30.12.1989 p. 1; text republished in OJ L 257 of 21.9.1990,
p. 13).

Action brought on 28 March 2002 by Klausner Nordic
Timber GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the
European Communities

Action brought on 20 March 2002 by Check Point
Software Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market

(Case T-89/02)

(2002/C 156/55)

(Language of the case: English)

(Case T-91/02)

(2002/C 156/56)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 March 2002 by Check Point
Software Limited, represented by Mr Graham Farrington of
Farrington & Co Solicitors, Reading (United Kingdom).

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 March 2002 by Klausner Nordic
Timber GmbH & Co. KG, Wismar (Germany), represented by
D.O. Reich, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision of the defendant’s First Board of

Appeal of 7 January 2002; and

— order the defendant

the application to its
to remit
Examination Division for re-examination of Community
Trade Mark no. 1744168 (SECURECLIENT).

— annul the Commission’s decision of 15 January 2002 on
State aid granted by Germany to Klausner Nordic Timber
GmbH & Co. KG;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.