Case T-387/02: Action brought on 13 December 2002 by Dorte Schmidt-Brown against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, Eurostat, access to information, action for annulment (EU), defamation, financial aid, right to information

22.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/23

Action brought on 29 November 2002 by Mühlens GmbH
& Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Board:

Dismissal of the opposition

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal

Grounds of claim:

— The goods are partly ident-
ical, or to a great extent
similar

— There is great similarity in
relation to the marks

— There is a risk of confusion
between the marks that are
comparable

(Case T-355/02)

(2003/C 70/38)

(Language of the case to be decided in accordance with Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was
drafted: German)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
29 November 2002 by Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG, Köln
(Germany), represented by T. Schulte-Beckhausen. Also a party
before the Board of Appeal: Zirh International CDRP, New
York, United States of America

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 13 December 2002 by Dorte Schmidt-
Brown against Commission of the European Communities

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of

1 October 2002 (File No R 657/2001-2;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

(Case T-387/02)

(2003/C 70/39)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Language of the case: French)

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

ZIRH International CDRP

Community trade mark Word mark ‘ZIRH’ for goods and
services in Classes 3 and 42 (inter
concerned:
alia, Soaps; perfumery; essential
oils; cosmetics; hair lotions and
Hygienic and beauty care services)
— Application No 1316744

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 December 2002 by Dorte
Schmidt-Brown, residing in Wellen (Germany), represented by
Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.

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

The applicant

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 26 April 2002

rejecting the applicant’s request seeking:

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

The figurative mark ‘Sir’ for Goods
in Class 3 (Perfumery, essential
oils, cosmetics, dentifrices, soaps,
hair lotions.

— aid and assistance from her institution in the action
brought before the courts of the United Kingdom
against Eurogramme Ltd;

C 70/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.3.2003

— access, permission to copy and to produce before
the courts all documents relating to the project
PRODCOM concerning Eurogramme Ltd directly or
indirectly and, in particular, those appearing in the
list enclosed with the originating request together
with all the elements of the internal investigation
file carried out by the Head of Unit DG EUROSTAT/
R.1 ‘Administrative and personnel matters’ including
the audit report of 21 December 2000;

— financial assistance to allow her to cover the entire
cost of defending the action seeking compensation
for non-material, professional and material damage
suffered as a result of defamatory statements made
against her;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Action brought on 19 December 2002 by Arla Foods
and Others against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-397/02)

(2003/C 70/40)

(Language of the case: Danish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 2002 by Arla Foods,
Viby J (Denmark), and eight other Danish cheese producers,
represented by Georg Lett, advokat.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants claim that the Court should:

The applicant was an official of the Commission, working for
DG EUROSTAT. She was responsible for the PRODCOM
project in respect of which Eurogramme Ltd entered into a
contract for the provision of statistical services.

— Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of
14 October 2002 (1) on the registration of the name ‘Feta’
under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
Regulation No 2081/92.

According to the applicant, Eurogramme Ltd made serious
accusations against the applicant in this respect. Subsequently,
the applicant brought an action on the grounds of defamation
against Eurogramme Ltd before the courts in the United
Kingdom.

In that context, the applicant submitted a request within the
meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations seeking to
obtain access and permission to copy and produce before the
courts in the United Kingdom all documents relating to
the PRODCOM project. That request also sought financial
assistance to allow her to cover the entire cost of defending
the action seeking compensation for damage suffered as a
result of defamatory statements made against her by Eurogram-
me Ltd. That request was rejected by the contested decision.

In support of her application, the applicant alleges infringe-
ment of Decision No 94/90 (1)on public access to Commission
the Staff
documents and infringement of Article 19 of
Regulations. The applicant points out that the contested
decision gives no reason for refusing access to the file and
permission to produce such documents before the courts.

( 1) 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom: Commission Decision of 8 February
1994 on public access to Commission documents (OJ 1994 L 46,
58).

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
protection of geographical
indications and designations of
origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2) introduced
Community rules governing inter alia designations for food-
stuffs. Under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of
12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications
and designations of origin under the procedure laid down
in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (3)
designations including ‘feta’ were registered. By judgment of
16 March 1999 (4), the Court of Justice annulled Regulation
No 1107/96 as regards the term ‘feta’. With the contested
regulation, the Commission has again registered the term ‘feta’
as a protected geographical indication in favour of Greece.

The applicants, all Danish producers of feta cheese, claim that
the contested regulation should be annulled and submit that
the regulation is vitiated by fundamental formal defects which
lead to its being invalid as regards registration of the term
‘feta’. According to the applicants, the Greek legislation was
enacted too late to enable the term ‘feta’ to be registered
pursuant to Article 17 of Council Regulation No 2081/92.
Moreover, neither the principal points in Greece’s application
nor technical goods specifications for the term ‘feta’ have been
made public.