Case T-194/03: Action brought on 30 May 2003 by Il Ponte Finanziaria S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), animal skin, clothing industry, footwear industry, leather, trade-mark law

2.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/49

The application for increase in capacity of the applicant was
submitted by Ireland to the European Commission, who rejected
it in the contested decision.

In support of its present application, the applicant submits that
the Commission erred in law and in fact. According to the
applicant, the increase in capacity complies with the provisions
of Article 4(2) of Council Decision 97/413/EEC and is there-
fore eligible for approval.

that

submits

furthermore

the Commission
The applicant
violated the principle of
legal certainty, the applicant's legit-
imate expectations and the principle of non-retroactivity.
According to the applicant, the Commission applied criteria
which were not in existence at the time the replacement vessel
was ordered or at
the time the application for increase in
capacity was submitted to the Commission.

the applicant claims that

In addition,
the Commission had
regard to the nature of the applications for increase prior to
adopting the said criteria and applied criteria that discriminated
against the applicant. The applicant claims that the exception
for vessels lost at sea and allowing an increase in tonnage in
respect of these new vessels constitutes an unjustified discrimi-
nation.

The applicant also submits that the Commission violated the
principle of proportionality, failed to give adequate or sufficient
reasons and denied the applicant's right to be heard.

(1) OJ L 175, p. 27.

Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Giuseppe Piro against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-193/03)

(2003/C 184/105)

(Language of the Case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 May 2003 by Giuseppe Piro,
resident
represented by
Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

in Wezembeek Oppem (Belgium),

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order

the Commission to pay him EUR 1 as token

damages for the harm suffered;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant pleads breach of the
obligation to state reasons in that the appeal assessor, when
drawing up the applicant's report for 1999 to 2001, did not
indicate the reasons why he did not take account of the views
of the persons consulted or of the difficult working conditions.
Nor did he explain precisely why the general assessment made
by him was less favourable than that appearing in the staff
report drawn up before the appeal to the Joint Committee on
Staff Reports.

The applicant also pleads the non-material damage suffered by
reason of the belated drawing up of his staff report.

Action brought on 30 May 2003 by Il Ponte Finanziaria
S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-194/03)

(2003/C 184/106)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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
30 May 2003 by Il Ponte Finanziaria S.p.A., represented by
P.L. Roncaglia, A.T. Malaspina and M. Boletto, lawyers.

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
was Marine Enterprise Projects Società Unipersonale di Alberto
Fiorenzi S.r.l.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) of 17 March 2003 in Case R 1015/
2001-4

— order the OHIM to dismiss the application for a Commu-
nity trade mark No 940007 BAINBRIDGE (figurative);

— annul the decision establishing the definitive staff report

for 1997 to 1999;

— order the OHIM to pay the costs.

C 184/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
trade mark:

for Community

Community
sought:

trade mark

Marine Enterprise Projects So-
cietà Unipersonale di Alberto
Fiorenzi S.r.l.

‘BAIN-
The
figurative mark
BRIDGE’ — Application for re-
gistration No 940007 requested
in Classes 18
for products
of
and
(Leather
leather,
hides;
animal
trunks and travelling bags; um-
brellas, parasols
and walking
sticks; whips, harness and sadd-
lery) and 25 (Clothing,
foot-
wear, headgear).

imitations
skins,

Proprietor of mark or sign
cited in the opposition pro-
ceedings:

The Applicant

Mark or sign cited in op-
position:

‘THE

BRIDGE’

for products

for products

Italian
marks
figurative
‘BRIDGE’ (Reg. No 370836 and
for
704338)
in
products
the figurative mark
Class 25,
‘THE BRIDGE BASKET’
(Reg.
No 593651)
in
Classes 18 and 25, trade name
‘THE
BRIDGE’
(Reg.
in
No 642952)
Class 25, the three-dimensional
marks
(Reg.
No 704372 and No 633349)
for products in Classes 18 and
‘FOOT-
trade name
the
25,
BRIDGE’
(Reg. No 710102) for
products in Classes 18 and 25,
‘THE
the
figurative mark
BRIDGE WAYFARER’
(Reg.
in
No 721569)
the trade
Classes 18 and 25,
BRIDGE’
‘OVER THE
name
(Reg. No 630763) for products
in Classes 18 and 25, and the
trade name ‘THE BRIDGE’ (Reg.
No 642953)
in
Class 18.

for products

for products

Decision of the Opposition
Division:

Dismissal of the opposition.

Decision of
Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board of

Dismissal of the appeal.

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

Action brought on 3 June 2003 by European Federation
the European
for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) against

Parliament and the Council of the European Union

(Case T-196/03)

(2003/C 184/107)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 3 June 2003 by
European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EffCI), Brussels,
Belgium, represented by Mr K. Maldegem and Mr C. Mereu,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare the application applicable and well founded, or, in
join the questions on admissibility to the

the alternative,
examination of the substance

the European Parliament

— Order the partial annulment of Article 1 of Directive
2003/15/EC (1) of
and the
Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive
76/768/EEC (2) on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to cosmetic products, so as to
remove the new Article 4a (2) and (2.1) ; Article 4b and
the new sub-paragraph added to Article 6(3) of
the
Directive 76/768/EEC.

— order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in the

proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant
is a European Economic Interest Grouping
representing European manufacturers of cosmetic ingredients.
The provisions of Directive 2003/15/EC which it attacks
concern the prohibition of the performance of animal testing
on chemicals used as ingredients in cosmetic products as well
as the prohibition of all uses in cosmetic products of certain
chemicals classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for
reproduction.

In support of its application to annul the provisions relating to
the prohibition of animal testing, the applicant advances the
following grounds:

— The alleged infringement of essential procedural require-
ments. The applicant claims that the contested measure is
legal basis. According to the
based on an incorrect
applicant, although it is based on Article 95 of the EC
treaty it is not intended to eliminate obstacles to the free
movement of goods or remove distortions of competition.
the applicant advances an alleged misuse of
Further,
the contested measure is, according to
in that
powers,
the applicant, intended to promote the welfare of animals
which is not part of the internal market objectives of the
EC. Finally,
contested
measure does not contain adequate reasons and due
motivation.

the applicant

claims

that

the