Case T-33/03: Action brought on 4 February 2003 by Osotspa Co., Ltd. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2003-06-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, trade-mark law

7.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/31

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

of 10 March 2003

of 26 March 2003

in Case T-303/01: Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro v
Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Project for the construction of the Madrid-Barcelona-French
border high-speed line — Financial assistance from the
Cohesion Fund — Expected impact of the route on the
environs of the Soto de Aguilar protected area — Com-
mission refusal to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil
obligations — Action for annulment — Natural and legal
persons — Act directly affecting them — Inadmissibility)

(2003/C 135/50)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

In Case T-303/01: Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro, established
in Zaragoza (Spain), represented by J. Ariño Barcelona, lawyer,
against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
G. Valero Jordana), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
R. Silva de Lapuerta) — application for annulment of the
decision of the Commission of 13 July 2001 refusing to
initiate proceedings for a finding of failure to fulfil obligations
under Article 226 EC against the Kingdom of Spain and
seeking the adoption of measures intended to prevent the
Spanish authorities from implementing their decision of
17 March 1999 concerning the route to be followed by the
Madrid-Barcelona-French border high-speed line — the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood,
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 10 March 2003, the operative part of which
is as follows:

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred
by the Commission.

3.

The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.

( 1) OJ 2002 C 44.

in Case T-85/03 R: Government of the Cayman Islands v
Commission of the European Communities

(Procedure for interim relief — Overseas countries and
territories — Request for establishment of a partnership
working party — Alleged decision to refuse — Partial
inadmissibility of heads of relief sought — Admissibility of
main action — Urgency — Absence)

(2003/C 135/51)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case T-85/03 R: Government of the Cayman Islands,
represented by E. Sharpston, QC, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and B. Eggers) —
application for interim measures in respect of the ongoing
legislative consideration of the Commission’s ‘Proposal for a
Council directive to ensure effective taxation of savings income
in the form of interest payments within the Community’
(COM/2001/0400 final, OJ 2001 C 270 E, p. 259), submitted
on 18 July 2001 and based on Article 94 EC — the President
of the Court of First Instance has made an order on 26 March
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

The application is dismissed;

Costs are reserved.

Action brought on 4 February 2003 by Osotspa Co., Ltd.
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-33/03)

(2003/C 135/52)

(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
submitted: 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

C 135/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.6.2003

4 February 2003 by Osotspa Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand,
represented by C. Gassauer-Fleissner, lawyer, with an address
for service in Luxembourg. Distribution & Marketing GmbH,
Salzburg, Austria, was also a party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law:

The applicant claims that a mini-
mal degree of similarity between
the marks is sufficient for a find-
ing that there is a likelihood of
confusion because the goods are
identical

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— vary the contested decision of the Third Board of Appeal
of 27 November 2002 in appeal proceedings No R 296/
2002-3 so as to allow the applicant’s opposition to the
application for registration of the mark ‘Hai’ filed by
Distribution & Marketing GmbH on 10 September 1997
and refuse the application for registration;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the Office for

Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Suproco N.V.
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-101/03)

(2003/C 135/53)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 March 2003 by Suproco
N.V., having its registered office in Curação, represented by
M.M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder.

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Community trade mark
sought:

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

Distribution & Marketing GmbH

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare its action to be admissible;

The word mark ‘Hai’ for goods
and services in Classes 5, 32, 33,
35 and 42 (inter alia, vitamin
preparations,
juices,
alcoholic beverages, catering for
guests) (application No 628172)

fruit

The applicant, Osotspa Co., Ltd.

— annul the European Commission decision of 10 January
2003 addressed to the Member States and refusing to
grant a derogation from Council Decision 2001/822/EC
in regard to the rules of origin for sugar from the
Netherlands Antilles;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Community figurative mark
No 168427 and the national figu-
rative mark ‘Shark’ for goods in
Class 32 (non-alcoholic drinks,
syrups and other preparations for
making beverages)

The applicant is a sugar-processing undertaking established in
the Netherlands Antilles. It imported, inter alia, sugar from a
cane-sugar supplier in Columbia. It processed this sugar into
brown granulated sugar and sugar lumps and re-exported it to
the EC pursuant to Article 3 of Annex II and Appendix 2 to
Annex II to Decision 91/482/EEC (1). On the basis of those
rules the applicant’s products were treated as being products
of OCT origin.

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Rejection of the applicant’s oppo-
sition

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Similar rules have also been adopted in Article 4 of Annex III
and Appendix 2 (2)
to Decision 2001/822
(the OCT Decision) (3), which replaces Decision 91/482/EEC.
Article 5(1)(g) of Annex III to the present OCT Decision,

to Annex III