Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

4.5.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 109/47

_Pleas in law and main arguments_ European Communities on 14 January 2002 by Zapf Creation
AG, represented by Mr Axel Kockläuner of Meissner, Bolte &
Partner, Munich (Germany).
The applicants are both part of the Omega group, which has a
substantial interest in aviation and the provision of such
services both within and without the European Community. A further party to the proceedings before the Board of appeal
The Omega group has the intention of constructing and was Jesmar S.A.
operating a second terminal at Dublin airport which will
provide direct competition to the present terminal operated by
Aer Rianta, the Irish state-owned company that owns and
The applicant claims that the Court should:
operates Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports.

—
annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
By letter dated 4 December 1998, the applicants lodged a 17 October 2001 in Case R 1123/2000-1 relating to
complaint with the Commission concerning alleged State aid Opposition Proceedings no. B 68587 and Community
in favour of Aer Rianta. It was alleged that aid had been trade mark application no. 50252 ‘Colette Zapf Creation’
granted, in particular, by a transfer of assets from the Minister
of Finance to Aer Rianta at a significant undervalue. On
5 October 2001, the Commission took a decision on the
complaint. In the second indent of Part 6 of this decision, the
Commission stated that the contested transfer of assets was _Pleas in law and main arguments_
not a grant of aid.

Applicant for the Com- Zapf Creation AG
munity trade mark:
The applicants challenge the legality of this decision on three
grounds:
The Community trade The figurative mark ‘Colette Zapf
— mark concerned: Creation’ for certain goods in
the Commission should have proceeded to open the class 28
formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 4(4)
of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999;
Proprietor of the right to Jesmar S.A.
the trade mark or sign
— the Commission misdirected itself as a matter of law in asserted by way of oppodetermining that the transfer of assets at an undervalue sition in the opposition
did not constitute State aid within the meaning of proceedings:
Article 87(1) EC Treaty;

Trade mark or sign The Spanish word mark ‘Colette’

—
the Commission gave an inadequate statement of reasons asserted by way of oppo- for certain goods in class 28
contrary to the requirements of Article 253 EC Treaty. sition in the opposition
proceedings:

Decision of the Oppo- Rejection of the opposition by
sition Division: Jesmar S.A.

Decision of the Board of Admission of the appeal lodged
Appeal: by Jesmar S.A.

**Action brought on 14 January 2002 by Zapf Creation AG**
Grounds of claim: Violation of Article 43, section 2,
**against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market** of Regulation 40/94 ( [1] ) since there
was no satisfactory proof of the
genuine use of the opposing
**(Case T-7/02)** trademark and violation of
Article 8, Section 1 b) of Regulation 40/94 since there is no
(2002/C 109/94)
danger of confusion.

_(Language of the case: English)_
( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the