Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 202/32 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 24.8.2002

_Pleas and main arguments_ **Action brought on 10 June 2002 by Uni-Pharma — Kleon**
**Tsetis Farmakeftika Ergastiria Anonimos Viomikhaniki**
**kai Emboriki Eteria against Office for the Harmonization**
**in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)**
In the contested decision the Commission imposed on the
Federal Republic of Germany the obligation to reclaim from a
**(Case T-182/02)**
group said to comprise Erba Lautex GmbH in liquidation
and Neue Erba Lautex GmbH aid amounting in total to
EUR 7 834 million. (2002/C 202/53)

_(Language of the case: French)_

The applicant submits that the Commission was incorrect in its
finding that the applicant and Erba Lautex GmbH constituted a
unit or group of undertakings and that therefore the ability to An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
approve rescue and restructuring aid could only be assessed in Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
favour of the group, that the Deggendorf doctrine was to be the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
applied and the aid was to be claimed back from both members 10 June 2002 by Uni-Pharma — Kleon Tsetis Farmakeftika
of the group. The Commission’s Decision is said to be based Ergastiria Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emboriki Eteria, whose
on the erroneous finding that the applicant’s case did not registered office is in Kato Kifissia, Attiki (Greece), represented
constitute a residual arrangement under the terms of the by Eleni Gioti-Manthou and Maria Bra.
exception provided for in footnote 10 of the Guidelines ( [1] ). By
not applying that exceptional provision the Commission
infringed the principle of equal treatment and provided no The applicant claims that the Court should:
objective reason for the unequal treatment.
— find that there is no likelihood of confusion between the
marks in question;

The applicant maintains that the Commission’s finding that — annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of
the applicant and Erba Lautex GmbH were to be deemed to Appeal of 27 February 2002;
constitute a group was erroneous since the applicant is
controlled not by Erba Lautex GmbH but by the liquidator. In — order the Office to pay the costs of all the proceedings,
consequence of the erroneous assumptions made by the including lawyers’ fees incurred by the applicant.
Commission the contested decision was already unlawful and
liable to be set aside for breach of Article 87(3)(c) EC in
conjunction with the Guidelines.
_Pleas in law and main arguments_

In the alternative the applicant maintains that the Commission
Applicant for the Com- The applicant
wrongly classified the relevant measure as aid or, in the
munity trade mark:
alternative, assumed a level of aid intensity greater than was
the case. In addition, in finding that the decision of 1999 to
The Community trade Word mark ‘Apotel’ in respect of
claim repayment of aid concerning Erba Lautex GmbH had mark concerned: certain goods in Class 5 (analnot been complied with, the Commission manifestly erred in
gesics and antipyretics) — appliits findings of facts in that regard. cation No 613554

Proprietor of the right to Biofarma (previously Orsem)
the trade mark or sign
Furthermore, the applicant is claiming that the Commission
asserted by way of oppocommitted errors of assessment and infringed essential formal
sition in the opposition
requirements. It infringed the duty to provide a statement of
proceedings:
reasons and the Federal Government’s right to be heard.
Finally, the Commission misused its discretion in adopting the Trade mark or sign National and international word
contested decision and infringed the right to administration in
asserted by way of oppo- mark ‘Aportex’ in respect of ceraccordance with the rules.
sition in the opposition tain goods in Class 5 (pharmaceuproceedings: tical products for the prevention
and/or treatment of the meno( [1] ) Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring pause)
firms in difficulty (OJ 1999 C 288, p. 2).
Decision of the Oppo- Dismissal of entire opposition
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal: Opposition Division

24.8.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 202/33

Grounds of claim: — Irregularity of the procedure _Pleas in law and main arguments_
in that the appeal was reassigned to another Board of
appeal and that the applicant
was not informed of the Applicant for the Com- The applicant.
change of name of the munity trade mark:
opponent.
Community trade mark Word mark MUNDICOR (appli— Failure of the Board of applied for: cation published in Community
Appeal to provide reasons Trade Mark Bulletin No 27/98,
for its decision. p. 600, 14 April 1998) for goods
in the 42 classes of the nomencla
—
Breach of the concept of ture.
‘likelihood of confusion’.

— Misuse of rights by the Owner of the mark or Gonza´lez Cabello S.A.
opponent in that it has not sign relied on in the
made any use of the mark opposition proceedings:
objected to.
Mark or sign opposed: Spanish mark MUNDICOLOR for
goods in class 2 (colours, varnishes, lacquers, preservatives against
rust and against deterioration of
wood; colorants; mordants; raw
natural resins; metals in foil and
powder form for painters, decorators, printers and artists).

Decision of the oppo- Application allowed.
sition division:
**Action brought on 11 June 2002 by El Corte Inglés, S.A.**
**against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal** Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal brought
**Market**
Appeal: by El Corte Inglés S.A.

Pleas in law relied on: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
**(Case T-183/02)**
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (likelihood of confusion).

(2002/C 202/54)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal **Action brought on 11 June 2002 by El Corte Inglés, S.A.**
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the **against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market**
European Communities on 11 June 2002 by El Corte Inglés,
S.A. of Madrid, represented by Juan Luis Rivas Zurdo.

**(Case T-184/02)**

The applicant claims that the Court should:
(2002/C 202/55)

— annul the decision of 22.3.02 of OHIM’s First Board of
_(Language of the case: Spanish)_
Appeal and the decision of 17.9.99 of OHIM’s opposition
division;

—
allow registration of Community Trade Mark No 557108
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
‘MUNDICOR’ to proceed for all goods claimed in Class 2;
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 June 2002 by El Corte Inglés,

—
order the opponent(s) to pay the costs. S.A. of Madrid, represented by Juan Luis Rivas Zurdo.