Case T-6/03: Action brought on 9 January 2003 by R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc. and RJR Acquisition Corp. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU competence, European Commission, action for failure to act, conflict of powers, money laundering

22.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/25

The applicants further claim that ‘feta’ does not fulfil the
conditions for registration pursuant to Council Regulation
No 2081/92. ‘Feta’ is a generic term which cannot be protected
under that regulation. ‘Feta’ is a generally used term of reference
for a given dairy product. The evolution in the Greek legislation
shows that ‘feta’ has been construed as a generic term in
Greece as well, just as the Council and the Commission in
their formulations have treated feta as a generic product.
Furthermore, Greek feta is not one uniform type of product,
leading to the conclusion that the aim is in reality the
protection of Greek cheese per se.

Lastly, the applicants submit that the registration of the term
‘feta’ is contrary to the principle laid down in Article 7(4) of
Council Regulation No 2081/92, fundamental principles of EC
law and therefore the Treaty, including Article 12 EC and
Article 34(3) EC, and also the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations and the proportionality principle.

( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002
amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard
to the name ‘Feta’ (OJ 2002 L 277, p 10).

( 2) OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1.
( 3) OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1.
( 4) Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96 Denmark and

Others v Commission [1999] ECR I-1541.

Action brought on 9 January 2003 by R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc. and RJR Acqui-
sition Corp. against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-6/03)

(2003/C 70/41)

(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 9 January 2003 by R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings,
Inc., Winston-Salem, United States of
America, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Winston-Salem,
United States of America R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International,
Inc., Winston-Salem, United States of America and RJR
Acquisition Corp, Wilmington, United States of America,
represented by Mr Eric Morgan de Rivery and Ms Francesca
Marchini Camia, Lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present application admissible;

— annul the Commission Decision resulting in the filing of
the third complaint (1) on 30 October 2002 before the
New York District Court against
the applicants, as
publicly announced by the Commission in its Press
Release IP/05/1592 of 31 October 2002;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
proceedings, including the costs of the applicants and
any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are the defendants in legal proceedings brought
by the Commission on behalf of the European Community
and a number of Member States before a United States court
seeking treble and punitive damages, equitable relief and
various types of injunctive relief for the applicants’ alleged
participation in money laundering schemes.

The applicants submit that the European Community, rep-
resented by the Commission, lacks the competence to adopt
the contested act and to bring action on its own behalf and on
behalf of Member States for the following reasons:

— Article 2 EC does not confer any specific and autonomous

powers upon the institutions;

— Article 281 EC merely states that the EC enjoys legal
personality, without addressing any issue of competence;

— Article 282 EC does not confer any competence on the
EC, represented by the Commission to bring an action
before the court of a non-Member State;

— Article 280 EC does not grant the EC, represented by the
Commission, any competence to bring legal action for
the protection of the Community’s financial
interests.
Article 280 only grants limited competence on the
Community to ensure that Member States introduce
measures that are effective to protect the Community’s
financial interest and to assist the Member States in this
task;

— even if one assumes that Article 280 EC grants such
competence on the EC, the contested act does not fulfil

C 70/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.3.2003

the requirements of Article 280(1) EC, i.e. it does not aim
at countering fraud which affects the financial interests of
it does not follow the procedure of
the Community,
Article 280(4) EC combined with Article 251 EC, and it
does not comply with the express exclusion of criminal
law and the administration of justice in Article 280(4)
EC;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM)
of 3 October 2002 in Joined Cases R 700/2000-4 and
R 746/2000-4;

— the contested act circumvents existing Community legis-

lation on money laundering;

— refuse to register Community trade mark No 203570;

— the EC, represented by the Commission, has assumed
the self-appointed role of ‘European Public Prosecutor’,
contrary to the Treaty and to the will of the Member
States.

The applicants allege that the EC, represented by the Com-
mission, has engaged in forum shopping aimed at bypassing
the shortcomings of the Members States and the EC, and that
it is not constitutionally competent to act on behalf of the
Member States.

Furthermore, the applicants submit that the contested act
violates the appropriate means of settling disputes concerning
the interpretation and application of the Treaty pursuant to
Article 292 EC. It also violates the obligation to state reasons
and the following general principles and fundamental rights:
the principle of proportionality, the principles of legitimate
expectations and of legal certainty as well as the rights of
defence and due process. Finally, the applicant maintains that
the defendant has misused its powers by adopting the contested
act.

( 1) The decision to commence the first proceedings was contested by
the applicants in Case T-379/00 (JO C 79 of 10.3.2001, p. 24).
The decision to commence the second proceedings was challenged
by the applicants in Case T-260/01 (JO C 3 of 5.1.2002 p. 39).

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

EMILIO PUCCI S.R.L.

The Community trade
mark concerned:

‘Emilio Pucci’,
in manuscript
handwriting — Application
No 203570 for goods in Class-
es 3, 18, 24 and 25

The applicant

Proprietor of the right to
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

sign
Trade mark or
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

(in manuscript
EMIDIO TUCCI
handwriting No 1908876 for
goods in Class 3, and No 855782
for goods in Class 25)

Action brought on 10 January 2003 by El Corte Inglés
against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-8/03)

(2003/C 70/42)

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Grounds of claim:

An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
10 January 2003 by El Corte Inglés, whose registered office is
in Madrid, represented by Juan Luis Rivas Zurdo.

Registration refused for goods in
Classes 3, 18 and 25 and appli-
cation for registration upheld for
goods in Class 25 and for certain
goods in Class 18

Appeal brought by the opponent
dismissed and action brought by
the applicant upheld in respect of
the goods refused in Class 18

Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
lihood of
confusion) and of
Article 8(5) thereof