Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 171/40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.7.2003

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

Moreover, the applicant doesn’t accept 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)_

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:

—
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.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Com- The applicant.
munity trade mark:

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

Proprietor of mark or NAULOVER SA
sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in Figurative mark NL (Community
opposition: trade mark No 13417 and Spanish trade mark No 1329084).

Decision of the Oppo- Rejection of the opposition.
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal: Opposition Division and acceptance of the opposition with
respect to Community trade mark
No 13417.

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC)No 40/94 (likelihood of confusion).

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

**(Case T-173/03)**

(2003/C 171/68)

_(Language of the case: English)_

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- The word mark ‘NURcerned: SERYROOM’ — application
No 1864107

Goods or service con- Goods in Class 16, 18,21, 25 and
cerned: 28(e.g. books, clothes, plush toys)

Decision contested Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of examiner
Appeal:

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:

Grounds of claim: Misapplication of Article 7(1)(c)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 ( [1] ).

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).

**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 Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

European Communitieson 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 registered office is in Boecilli, Valladolid (Spain) Euskaltel, S.A.,
whose registered office isin 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.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicants in the present action are contesting the
decisions of 14 March 2003by 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 Sogecable’s capital (23 %) should be greater than the share held by
the company’s referencepartners. 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