Case T-353/02: Action brought on 18 November 2002 by Duarte y Beltrán S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)
Date: 2003-02-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cosmetic product, household article, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, teaching materials, trade-mark law

C 44/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.2.2003

established in Uelzen, Germany, represented by D. Fouquet,
Lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: V. Kreuschitz and J.L. Buendia Sierra) — application
for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to
examine non-notified aid granted by the Federal Republic of
Germany to nuclear power station operators — the Court
of First Instance (First Chamber, Enlarged Composition),
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Azizi. R.M. Moura
Ramos, M. Jaeger and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 27 November 2002, in which it:

Action brought on 18 November 2002 by Duarte y
Beltrán S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (OHIM)

(Case T-353/02)

(2003/C 44/60)

1. Held that there was no need to give judgment in the action;

2. Ordered each party to bear its own costs.

(Language of
to be determined in accordance with
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Application in Spanish)

the case:

( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 November 2002 by Duarte y
Beltrán S.A. of Santander (Spain), represented by Natalia Moya
Fernández.

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

The applicant claims that the Court should:

of 6 December 2002

in Case T-275/02 R: D v European Investment Bank

(Procedure for interim relief — Extension of probationary
period — Admissibility of the main action — Urgency —
None)

(2003/C 44/59)

— annul the decision of 6 August 2002 of the Second Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (OHIM) in Case R-407/2001 and the corrigendum
of 16 September 2002 thereto;

— reject Opposition B 35073 in its entirety;

— uphold the claims of the applicant and direct the relevant
Opposition Division of OHIM to proceed to register the
mark in question;

(Language of the case: French)

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

In Case T-275/02 R: D, an agent of the European Investment
Bank, residing in Luxembourg, represented by J. Choucroun,
Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
European Investment Bank (Agents: J.-P. Minnaert and P. Mou-
sel) — application for suspension of operation of the decisions
of the European Investment Bank first extending the applicant’s
period of probation and second dismissing him — the
President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on
6 December 2002, in which he:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Orders that costs are reserved.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Duarte y Beltrán S.A.

Community trade mark
applied for:

INTEA — application no 99 747
for certain goods in classes 3, 16
and 21

Proprietor of the trade MIRATO S.p.A.
mark or sign invoked in
the
pro-
opposition
cedure:

22.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/31

Trade mark or
opposed:

sign Word marks INTESA (two Italian
marks, one international mark
and a Greek, a Finnish, a Swedish,
a UK and an Irish mark), for goods
in classes 9, 14, 18 and 21, in the
case of one of the two Italian
marks, and class 3 in the case of
the others. The opposition was
directed against the goods men-
tioned in the application as being
in classes 3 and 21.

Ruling of the Opposition
Division:

opposition partially upheld (risk
of confusion in the case of goods
of class 3).

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law:

— relevance of the phonetic dif-
ference between the conflict-
ing marks

— conceptual

difference

between the marks

— no risk of confusion between
the conflicting marks.

Action brought on 25 November 2002 by Bristol-Myers
Squibb International Corporation against the Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-354/02)

(2003/C 44/61)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 November 2002 by Bristol-
Myers Squibb International Corporation, Brussels, Belgium,
represented by David Anderson QC, Kelyn Bacon, Barrister
and Ian Dodds-Smith, Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2002) 3370 dated 9 Sep-

tember 2002;

— order that the Commission pays the applicant’s costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision requires the Member States to amend
the national marketing authorisations as listed in annex I
to the Decision. The amendments concern the marketing
authorisations for Capoten and associated names, to produce
a harmonised summary of product characteristics.

The applicant represents the various subsidiary companies that
are the marketing holders for Capoten throughout the EU.
Capoten, based on the active substance captopril, is a medicinal
product commonly know as an ACE-inhibitor. The product
was first authorised in the EU in 1980.

The authorisations for Capoten in the EU were obtained under
national marketing authorisation procedures, pursuant
to
Directive 65/65/EEC (1). As a result, some differences existed
between the authorisations in the EU Member States as regards
the wording and extent of information given. According to the
applicant,
the therapeutic indications were similar in all
Member States.

Following patent expiry in the individual Member States,
generic captopril products have been authorised in those
states. The applicant believes that after an attempt to achieve
mutual recognition in Italy of the authorisation by France of
one of those generic products, Italy referred the matter to the
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. The rationale
of the referral was that the therapeutic indications in the
summary of product characteristics were different and that a
harmonisation was necessary for public health reasons. The
contested decision was adopted following the referral.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
contested decision is invalid on the ground of
lack of
competence of the European Agency for the Evaluation of
Medicinal Products, the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal
Products and the Commission. According to the applicant, the
referral to the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products
was not in accordance with Article 30 of Directive 2001/83/
EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for
human use (2). The existence of divergent national decisions
regarding the authorisation of a product is a necessary, but not
a sufficient condition for such a referral. According to the
applicant, the referring body must additionally identify the