Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

27.10.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303/17

European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) 2. _The request submitted by Poste Italiane SpA and by the_
(OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49) to the extent that that decision excludes _Commission for confidential treatment is granted with regard_
from that financing expenditure declared by the Irish accredited _to the interlocutory proceedings._
paying agency in respect of afforestation aid — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, 3. _The application for interim relief is dismissed._
K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
an order on 25 April 2001, the operative part of which is as 4. _Costs are reserved._
follows:

1. _The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible._

2. _The applicant shall bear its own costs and shall pay those of_
_the Commission._ **Action brought on 18 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B.,**
**S.L. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal**
**Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)**
3. _Ireland shall bear its own costs._

**(Case T-162/01)**

( [1] ) OJ C 355 of 9.12.00.
(2001/C 303/30)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_

An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
**ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST** 18 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B., S.L., whose registered
**INSTANCE** office is in Bigues i Riells (Spain), represented by Arturo Canela
Giménez.

**of 28 May 2001**
The applicant claims that the Court should:

**in Case T-53/01 R: Poste Italiane SpA v Commission of** —
annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
**the European Communities** Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market
(trade marks and designs) (OHIM) of 30 April 2001 in
_**(Applications for interim relief — Article 86 EC in conjunc-**_ Case R 122/2000-1 _Giorgio Beverly Hills_ v _Giorgi and_
_**tion with Article 82 EC — Article 86(2) EC — Postal**_ _Others_, on the ground that the disputed Community trade
_**services — Urgency — Balancing of interests)**_ mark number 417709 Giorgio Beverly Hills may not be
registered pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94;
(2001/C 303/29)

—
declare Community trade mark number 417709 Giorgio
Beverly Hills invalid or, if appropriate, refuse it regis_(Language of the case: Italian)_
tration;

—
In Case T-53/01 R: Poste Italiane SpA, established in Rome, order the Office to pay the costs.
represented by Gian Michele Roberti, Petrus Mathijsen, Alessandra Perrazzelli, Elisabetta Rubini and Andrea Sandulli,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against _Pleas in law and main arguments_
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
L. Pignataro and K. Wiedner) — application for suspension of
operation of Commission Decision 2001/176/EC of
21 December 2000 concerning proceedings pursuant to Proprietor of the Com- Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc.
Article 86 of the EC Treaty in relation to the provision of munity trade mark:
certain new postal services with a guaranteed day- or timecertain delivery in Italy (OJ 2001 L 63, p. 59) — the President The Community trade Word mark ‘GIORGIO BEVERLY
of the Court of First Instance made an order on 28 May 2001, mark concerned: HILLS’ — Application No 417709
the operative part of which is as follows: for goods in Class 3

Proprietor of the right to Applicant
1. _Recapitalia Consorzio Italiano delle Agenzie di Recapito_ the trade mark or sign
_Licenziatarie del Ministero delle Comunicazioni and TNT Post_ asserted by way of oppo_Groep NV are granted leave to intervene in Case T-53/01 R in_ sition in the opposition
_support of the form of order sought by the Commission._ proceedings:

C 303/18 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27.10.2001

Trade mark or sign Spanish trade marks ‘J. GIORGI’, the performance of the INFORMS contract; consequently,
asserted by way of oppo- ‘MISS GIORGI’, ‘GIORGI LINE’, order it to pay to IDATE the sum of Euros 503 662 by
sition in the opposition registered for goods in Class 3 way of damages;
proceedings:

—
Decision of the Oppo- Dismissal of the opposition and in any event, order the Commission to pay the whole of
sition Division: party bringing opposition pro- the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of the
ceedings ordered to pay costs present action.

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal and appelAppeal: lant ordered to pay costs

Grounds of claim: Contrary to what is stated in the _Pleas in law and main arguments_
contested decision, there is likelihood of confusion between the
Community trade mark and the
trade marks of which the appli- The applicants states that in the context of the Community
cant is the proprietor, since the Trans-European Telecommunications Networks Programme it
differences between them to not concluded a contract (Contract No 45504) concerning the
allow the consumer to differen- INFORMS project (‘Dissemination of EuroISDN Benefits for
tiate between them. SMEs’) under which it agreed to organise, throughout the
Member countries of the European Union, seminars aimed at
informing and advising small and medium sized undertakings
on the possible advantages of using the EuroISDN. In view of
the size of the project, the contract called for the participation
of subcontractors (‘partners’). Under the above contract, the
Commission agreed to contribute, at the level of 50,85 %, to
the financing of the total allowable costs borne under the
contract, which include subcontracting costs.
**Action brought on 25 July 2001 by the Institut de**
**l’Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe**
**against Commission of the European Communities**
Initially the Commission paid its contribution in respect of all
the costs invoiced to the applicant by its subcontractors under
**(Case T-171/01)** the above contract, but after an audit of the contract it claimed
from the applicant a certain amount of the sum paid on the
ground that a part of the subcontracting costs was not covered
(2001/C 303/31)
by the concept of allowable costs in as much as it had not
actually been paid by the applicant to the subcontractors but
_(Language of the case: French)_ is the subject matter of a set-off.

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the The applicant disputes that interpretation and submits that, as
European Communities on 25 July 2001 by the Institut de regards the subcontracting costs borne under the INFORMS
l’Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe, estab- contract, it was merely an intermediatory between the Comlished in Montpellier (France), represented by Mr Hugues mission and the other partners, since it merely paid back
Calvet, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg. directly to the ‘partners’, at a rate of 50,85 % of the costs borne
by them, the sums paid by the Commission by way of
Community finance of the subcontracting in the INFORMS
The applicant claims that the Court should: project, which explains why all the subcontracting costs were
invoiced to it and why it set off the amount corresponding to
— the financing which each individual ‘partner’ had to raise
declare and hold that ‘allowable costs’ within the meaning
of Article 1.2 of Annex II to contract No 45504 (the remaining 49,15 %). The applicant submits that the
concluded between the Commission and IDATE on Community contribution must be calculated on the total cost
28 March 1996 covers the whole of the costs invoiced to actually borne under the INFORMS contract, which means, as
regards subcontracting, the total cost borne by the ‘partners’.
IDATE by the ‘partners’ under that contract and, therefore,
that the Commission is not entitled to claim from IDATE That amount corresponds to the total costs invoiced to the
reimbursement of the sum of Euros 503 662 under the applicant, since, in that area, it merely centralised the accounts
and played the role of intermediatory with regard to the
above contract or, more generally, any sum at all;
Commissions contribution.

—
in the alternative, declare and hold that the Commission
infringed its duty of good faith and its duty to inform
IDATE and thereby committed breaches of contract in