Removal from the register of Case T-203/00
Date: 2002-07-13
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: CCT duties, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), customs regulations, meat processing industry, redemption

13.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 169/43

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Removal from the register of Case T-203/00 (1)

— partially annul Decision R 34/2000-1 of the First Board
of Appeal of 21 February 2002 to the extent that the
applicant was ordered to bear half of the opposition fees
as well as its owns costs in the opposition and appeal
proceedings;

— order the Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant filed an application for registration of the word
mark ‘METABALANCE 44’ in respect of goods in Classes 5
and 29 at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(application no 155747). Frieslands Brands B.V. opposed that
application. The opposition was based on various national and
international marks including, inter alia, ‘BALANCE’, ‘BALANS’
and ‘FRIESISCHE FLAGGE BALANCE’ in respect of, inter alia,
goods in Classes 5 and 29.

As a result of a private settlement with the opponent, the
applicant limited the category of goods by removing some of
the goods claimed in Class 29. The opponent later withdrew
its opposition but sought a decision on costs.

The Opposition Division decided that the applicant should
bear the costs of the opposition procedure. The Board of
Appeal set this decision aside and ordered each of the parties
to pay its own costs in respect of the opposition and appeal
proceedings.

The applicant is appealing against the decision of the Board of
Appeal and claims that the more specific Article 81(4) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) , not Article 81(3), is
applicable in the present case. The defendant thus failed to
take into account the fundamental assessment criteria and to
observe the principle of proportionality.

in the applicant’s opinion,

Moreover,
the defendant also
wrongly applied the assessment criteria in Article 81(3) in
conjunction with Article 81(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 40/94. In the applicant’s view, that provision requires
that a decision on costs should take into account general
considerations of equity and fairness.

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

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

(2002/C 169/76)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 25 February 2002 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-203/00: Beemsterboer Coldstore Services B.V. v Commission
of the European Communities.

(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.

Removal from the register of Case T-309/00 (1)

(2002/C 169/77)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 17 April 2002 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-309/00: S.A.
Cimenteries CBR v Commission of the European Communities.

(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.

Removal from the register of Case T-14/02 (1)

(2002/C 169/78)

(Language of the case: English)

By order of 9 April 2002 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
from the register of Case T-14/02:
ordered the removal
Agrofair Benelux BV and Others v Commission of
the
European Communities.

(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.