Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 184/38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 2.8.2003

—
order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant is a truck and bus manufacturer. By means of
the contested decisions, the Commission refused to enforce an
immediate divestiture of the shareholding of AB Volvo in
Scania AB and refused to communicate to the applicant the
confidential terms of the divestiture of the Shareholding of AB
Volvo in Scania AB as stipulated in the AB Volvo/Renault
Véhicule Industriel (VI) decision. On the basis of these
Commission Decisions, AB Volvo has been able to maintain a
dominant position vis-à-vis Scania for almost 4 years.

In support of its claim, the applicant invokes Articles 8 (4), 6
and 18(3) of the Merger Regulation ( [1] ).

According to the applicant, the Commission infringed Article 8
(4) of the Merger Regulation by refusing to enforce an
immediate divestiture at the applicant's request. The applicant
argues that the minority shareholding of AB Volvo constitutes
de jure and de facto, sole or joint control with investor AB
over Scania which should have been stopped by the Commission.

Furthermore, the applicant invokes Article 6 of the Merger
Regulation. The applicant submits that the Commission should
have revoked the Volvo/Renault decision and reviewed the
terms of the divestiture. The applicant alleges that Volvo
infringed its undertaking pertaining to the divestiture when
participating in the decision-making process of Scania.

The applicant also claims that the Commission should have
disclosed to Scania the information relating to the confidential
approved terms of the divestiture as stipulated in the Volvo/
Renault (VI) decision. The applicant claims to be a directly
involved party to whom the Commission should have granted
access to the information contained in the Volvo/Renault
decision.

Finally, the applicant argues that any prolongation for the
accomplishment of the divestiture from 2003 to 2004 is not
automatic but should have been assessed and justified by the
Commission.

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21.12.1989 on the
control of concentrations between undertakings (JO L 257, p. 13).

**Action brought on 8 May 2003 by Ampafrance SA against**
**the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market**
**(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-164/03)**

(2003/C 184/86)

_(Language of the case: French)_

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
8 May 2003 by Ampafrance SA, established in Cholet (France),
represented by C. Bercial Arias, lawyer.

Johnson & Johnson GmbH was also a party to the proceedings
before the First Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul or vary those parts of the decision given by the
First Board of Appeal of the defendant on 4 March 2003
in Case R 220/2002-1 in which the applicant's claims
were not upheld and, consequently, rule that ‘babies'
napkins of absorbent cotton’ are not similar to the goods
covered by the German trade mark ‘bebe’
(No 1 168 346), that there are no similarities liable to
lead to a likelihood of confusion between the marks
‘bebe’ and ‘monBeBé’ (logo) and that Community trade
mark application No 297 309 is to be registered in its
entirety;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Community Ampafrance SA
trade mark:

Community trade mark Mixed word and figurative mark
sought: ‘monbebé’ — Application
No 297 309, lodged in respect
of goods in Classes 3, 5, 8, 10,
11, 12, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25
and 28.

Proprietor of mark or sign
cited in the opposition proceedings:

Johnson & Johnson GmbH

Mark or sign cited in op- National trade mark ‘bebe’, reposition: gistered for goods in Classes 3,
16 and 24.

Decision of the Opposition Rejection of the opposition.
Division:

Decision of the Board of Partial annulment of the deciAppeal: sion of the Opposition Division
and partial rejection of the application for registration as regards certain goods such as
soaps etc; dismissal of the remainder of the appeal

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