Case T-173/03: Action brought on 19 May 2003 by Anne Geddes against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Date: 2003-07-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), toy industry, trade-mark law

C 171/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2003

— Has not given due weight to the applicant’s interest in

Pleas in law and main arguments

receiving the requested documentation

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

The applicant.

Community trade mark
sought:

Figurative mark NLCollection —
Application No 1082809 for
goods in Class 25 (articles of
clothing, footwear and headgear).

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

NAULOVER SA

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

Figurative mark NL (Community
trade mark No 13417 and Span-
ish trade mark No 1329084).

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Annulment of the decision of the
Opposition Division and accept-
ance of
the opposition with
respect to Community trade mark
No 13417.

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

the applicant doesn’t accept

Moreover,
the Commission’s
contention that the Member States would have to be consulted
in relation to the submissions made by them in the minutes. It
is the applicant’s position that, in accordance with Article 4(4)
of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, a consultation with a Member
State shall take place only when it is not clear whether a
document shall or shall not be disclosed. Furthermore, the
final decision as to whether or not a document shall be released
remains with the Commission, and this must be reasoned and
clearly justified as falling within one of
the exemptions
provided for in the access regulation.

( 1) OJ L 291 of 6.12.1995, p. 40.
( 2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of
31.5.2001, p. 43).

Action brought on 19 May 2003 by New Look Limited
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-171/03)

(2003/C 171/67)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Action brought on 19 May 2003 by Anne Geddes against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

An action against the 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
19 May 2003 by New Look Limited, established in Weymouth,
Dorset (United Kingdom), represented by R. Ballester and
G. Marín, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case T-173/03)

(2003/C 171/68)

(Language of the case: English)

— annul the decision of OHIM (First Board of Appeal) of

15 April 2003 in Case No R 019/2003-1;

— order OHIM and any intervener to pay the costs.

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 May 2003 by Anne Geddes,
Auckland, New Zealand, represented by Mr G. Farrington,
Solicitor.

19.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/41

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted on 13 February 2003 by the
Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in case
R 839/2001-4;

— order the Defendant to remit the application to its
Examination Division for re-examination of Community
Trade Mark number 1864107.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The trade mark con-
cerned:

word

‘NUR-
The
SERYROOM’ — application
No 1864107

mark

Goods or service con-
cerned:

Goods in Class 16, 18, 21, 25 and
28 (e.g. books, clothes, plush toys)

Decision
before
Appeal:

contested
the Board of

Refusal of
examiner

registration by the

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Grounds of claim:

Misapplication of Article 7(1)(c)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

European Communities on 21 May 2003 by Auna Operadores
de Telecomunicaciones, S.A., whose registered office is in
Barcelona (Spain) represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
Natalia Lacalle Mangas, lawyers, Retecal Sociedad Operadora
de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, S.A. whose regis-
tered office is in Boecilli, Valladolid (Spain) Euskaltel, S.A.,
whose registered office is in Zamudio, Bizkaia (Spain) Telecable
de Asturias, S.A. (a company arising from the merger between
Telecable de Avilés, S.A., Telecable de Oviedo, S.A. and
Telecable de Gijón, S.A.), whose registered office is in Oviedo
(Spain), R. Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A., whose
registered office is in A Coruña (Spain), and Tenaria, S.A.,
whose registered office is in Cordovilla, Navarra (Spain)
represented by José Mª Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decisions of the Commission of 14 March
2003 in so far as the Commission took the view that the
agreement of 29 January 2003 did not give rise to a new
concentration;

— order the Commission to pay the entire costs of the

proceedings.

( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-

munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Auna Operadores de
Telecomunicaciones, S.A., Retecal Sociedad Operadora de
Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, S.A. Euskaltel,
S.A., Telecable de Asturias, S.A. (a company arising from
the merger between Telecable de Avilés, S.A., Telecable
de Oviedo, S.A. and Telecable de Gijón, S.A.), R. Cable y
Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A. and Tenaria, S.A. against
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-180/03)

(2003/C 171/69)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

The applicants in the present action are contesting the
decisions of 14 March 2003 by which the Commission decided
to take no further action on the complaints lodged by them
against an agreement between the companies Sogecable and
Telefónica on 29 January 2003 which, in their view, gives rise
to a new concentration by comparison with the concentration
previously notified on 3 July 2002, which was referred to the
national authorities by decision of 14 August 2002 (1).

According to the applicants, the abovementioned agreement
of 20 January 2003 envisages the possibility, which had
initially been discarded, that Telefónica’s final share of Soge-
cable’s capital (23 %) should be greater than the share held by
the company’s reference partners. The agreement also provides
that Telefónica will waive certain rights affecting questions of
policy arising from the major shareholding of those assets by
Prisa and Groupe Canal+. On the other hand, Telefónica would
remain a shareholder in Sogecable with effect
from the
implementation of the concentration operation. Furthermore,
with the purpose of assisting the integration of their platforms,
Prisa, Groupe Canal+ and Telefónica each agreed to provide
Sogecable with a loan with profit participation amounting to
EUR 50 million repayable in 10 years. It was also agreed