Case T-170/04: Action brought on 18 May 2004 by FederDOC and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-07-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition, designation of origin, intellectual property, liberalisation of the market, product designation, third country, viticulture, wine

10.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/15

Action brought on 18 May 2004 by FederDOC and Others
against the Commission of the European Communities

could ultimately place in circulation within the Community
products without the oenological and organoloptic qualities
which the wines in question must possess.

(Case T-170/04)

(2004/C 179/29)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 May 2004 by FederDOC –
National Confederation of voluntary associations for the protec-
tion of designations of origin and typical geographical indica-
tions of Italian and other wines, represented by Luciano Spag-
nuolo Vigorita, Paolo Tanoni and Roberto Gandin, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20
February 2004 (OJ 2004 L 55, p. 16) amending Regulation
(EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying
Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the
description, designation, presentation and protection of
certain wine sector products.

Under national
legislation all the applicants are legitimately
entitled to secure the use of the abovementioned traditional
indications or, at any rate, to use them.

In support of their claims the applicants consider, in particular,
that the Commission has exceeded the competences conferred
on it and adopted the contested regulation without an adequate
statement of reasons and without first obtaining the opinion of
the Management Committee for wine established under Regu-
lation No 1493/1999 or seeking the views of the applicants
themselves.

The applicants further consider that certain provisions of the
contested regulation contravene important principles under-
mining the EC Treaty such as those in the sector of agriculture,
of competition, consumer protection, equal treatment, propor-
tionality, acquired rights and legal certainty. Specific provisions
of Regulation No 1493/1999 (Articles 47, 48 and 49) are then
also infringed by the contested regulation which also runs
counter to Articles 23(3) and 24(4) of the Marrakesh Trips
Agreement of 15 April 1994 (Trade Related Intellectual Prop-
erty Rights) to which the Community is a party.

The applicants also claim that the contested regulation contra-
venes the obligation to provide a statement of the reasons on
which it is based.

— In the alternative, annul in whole or in part, Article 1(3),
(8a), (9a), (9b), (10) and (18) of Regulation No 316/2004
and, consequently, Annex II thereto.

(1) OJ 2004 L 55, p. 16.

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas and main arguments

The present action is directed against Commission Regulation
(EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Regulation
(EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying
Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the descrip-
tion, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine
sector products (1).

liberalisation,

in favour of

Essentially, the applicants point to the real danger that imple-
mentation of the contested regulation could result in a degree
of
third-country producers, as
regards the use of the following traditional indications which
distinguish specific Italian wines known throughout the world:
Amarone, Cannellino, Brunello, Est!Est!Est!, Falerno, Governo
all'uso toscano, Gutturnio, Lacryma Christi, Lambiccato, Morel-
lino, Recioto, Sciacchetrà, Sciac-trà, Sforzato (or Sfurzat),
Torcolato, Vergine, Vino Nobile, Vin santo (or Vino Santo or
Vinsanto). That would prejudice the position which has, by
dint of their efforts, been achieved by the producers of the
Member States in the wine market (producers bound by obser-
vance of strict parameters as to quantity and quality) and,
above all, would result in unacceptable damage to consumer
confidence. Third-country producers would not
in fact be
required to observe the relevant production parameters and

Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Telefónica S.A. against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-172/04)

(2004/C 179/30)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

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 17
May 2004 by Telefónica S.A. established in Madrid, represented
by Mr Andrea Sirimarco, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

12 March 2004 in Case R 676/2002-1;