Case T-280/02: Action brought on 15 September 2002 by J.J. Pikaart and Others against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-11-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), inland waterway fleet, inland waterway shipping, vessel

23.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 289/29

of the European Communities on 10 September 2002 by
Dyson Limited, Malmesbury, Wiltshire (United Kingdom),
represented by D. Barron, C. Jones and C. Loweth, Lawyers.

Communities on 15 September 2002 by J.J. Pikaart and
Others, represented by M.J. van Dam and R.D. Ouwerling.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the

Office of 2 July 2002 (Case R655/2001-1),

— remit the decision to the Board for further consideration
in respect of the other absolute grounds of refusal raised
by the examiner under Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of
Regulation No 40/94,

— order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Trade Mark:

Goods and services:

Decision
before
Appeal:

challenged
the Board of

Pleas in law:

‘Feature of goods’ consisting of
‘a transparent bin or collection
chamber forming part of an exter-
nal surface of a vacuum cleaner’
— Application No 522144

‘Apparatus for cleaning, polishing
and shampooing floors and car-
carpet
pets; vacuum cleaners;
shampooers; floor polishers; parts
and fittings for all the aforesaid
goods’
in Class 7 of the Nice
classification).

Refusal by the examiner to regis-
ter.

Misinterpretation
of
Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No
40/94.

Action brought on 15 September 2002 by J.J. Pikaart and
Others against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-280/02)

(2002/C 289/54)

(Language of the Case: Dutch)

An action against Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) Annul the Decision of the European Commission of

16 July 2002 (E1/L 02157 D(2002) 11796;

(2) Order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants own the inland waterway vessel Factotum. In
1997 the mid and bow sections of the Factotum were replaced.
At the same time the tonnage of the Factotum was increased
through lengthening the mid and bow sections. The old mid
and bow sections were left unused by the applicants. The
original plans to make this segment into a pusher craft were
not put into effect because of a possible old-for-new obligation
pursuant to Regulation No 1101/89 (1).

the Netherlands Fund imposed a levy on the
However,
applicants pursuant
in Regu-
to the old-for-new rule
lation 1101/89. According to the applicants, the Factotum
was hereby regarded as a newly constructed motor-vessel.

The applicants then asked the Commission how Article 8
of Regulation 1101/89 should be applied in the specific
circumstances. The applicants’ present action contests the
interpretation given by the Commission.

The applicants submit that the alterations to the Factotum did
not constitute a newly constructed vessel or any of the other
cases set out in Article 8 of Regulation 1101/89. According to
the applicants, the replacement of the section of the Factotum
increases the total capacity of inland waterway vessels only in
so far as it lengthens the Factotum. In other words, the old-
for-new obligations should have been limited to the additional
tonnage.

The applicants also submit that if the old mid and bow section
were to be converted to a pusher vessel, that is no reason to
impose old-for-new obligation in respect of the motor-vessel
tonnage of the Factotum. The applicants submit that this
extension concerns pusher vessel tonnage for which the old-
for-new obligations are less severe than those for motor-vessel
tonnage.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 of 27 April 1989 on
structural improvements in inland waterway transport (OJ L 116,
p. 25).