Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

30.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 186/13

— in the alternative: review the amounts accounted for in **Action brought on 11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH**
the decision of 21 February 2001, reducing the amount **against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
not attributed to IAMA Consulting S.r.l., to its detriment, **Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**
in each case in an amount not less than LIT 600 000 000
(six hundred million), the exact amount to be quantified
according to prudent and fair assessment; **(Case T-86/01)**

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.
(2001/C 186/20)

_Pleas in law and main arguments_ _(Language of the case: German)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The present action has been brought against the measures Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
adopted by the Commission on 12 February 2001 (INFSO- Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
3/dec0033FM/D(01)240047) and 21 February 2001 (INFO- 11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH, of Stuttgart (Germany),
R2/feb0020RW/D(01)400027) respectively, with regard to represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, with an address
the eligibility of expenses incurred by IAMA International for service in Luxembourg.
Management Advisors S.r.l. and by the applicant in the context
of ESPRIT projects REGIS 22337 and REFIAG 23200, in so
The applicant claims that the Court should:
far as the expenses incurred by the applicant in the periods
1 May 1996 to 31 October 1997 (Project REGIS 22337) and

—
1 November 1996 to 31 October 1997 (Project REFIAG annul the decision adopted on 31 January 2001 by the
23200) are not recognised as eligible. First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in the
appeal proceedings registered under number
In support of its arguments, the applicant claims: R 123/2000-1 concerning Community trade mark application No 761 304;

—
Infringement and misapplication of Articles 1362, 1366, —
order the defendant Office to pay the costs.
1368, 1370, 1374 and 1375 of the Italian Civil Code;

—
Misuse of powers inasmuch as the facts were misassessed
and misrepresented. The applicant submits in this respect _Pleas in law and main arguments_
that the Commission regards the applicant undertaking
as separate and autonomous from the other undertaking
mentioned above, whereas they form part of the IAMA Applicant for the Com- the applicant
group, of which both are representative. Consequently, munity trade mark:
the defendant appears to have accorded decisive importance to the formal matter of IAMA Consulting S.r.l.
The trade mark con- the verbal mark ‘Kit Super Pro’
replacing IAMA International S.r.l., regarding it as succerned:
cessor to the relationship originally entered into with
IAMA International S.r.l. only since 1 November 1997.
Goods or service con- goods and services in Class 12
— cerned: (parts for repairing drum brakes
Misuse of powers inasmuch as the measures are illogical,
in land vehicles)
contradictory and do not provide an adequate statement
of reasons. The applicant submits in this respect that, in
Decision contested refusal of the application for regisview of the fact that the two aforementioned undertakings
before the Board of tration of the mark
belong to the same group, of which the applicant is the
Appeal:
operational undertaking in relation to the group leader
IAMA International S.r.l., and that contracts were performed in good time, it is difficult to see the objective Grounds of claim: — The mark is not descriptive
pursued by the Commission in penalising the IAMA within the meaning of
group by not finding eligible the expenses incurred by Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
the applicant in the performance of contracts which, (EC) No 40/94 ( [1] ).
moreover, made it possible for the prescribed objectives
— There is no need to keep the
to be fully attained.
mark free.

— The mark possesses the minimum level of distinctiveness
necessary for trade-mark protection.

C 186/14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 30.6.2001

— Registration of the mark in _Pleas in law and principal arguments_
question would accord with
the other aspects of the
The applicant pleads, with reference to the judgment in
decision-making practice followed by the Boards of Antillean Rice Mills, that safeguard measures must be of a
temporary nature. It maintains that no assessment whatever
Appeal.
has been carried out, let alone any examination of the need for
— Infringement, alternatively an extension.
misinterpretation, of
Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of ReguFor the rest, the pleas in law and main arguments are analogous
lation No 40/94.
to those in Cases T-94/00 and T-332/00.

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1). ( [1] ) What is meant is Commission Regulation (EC) No 396/2001 of
27 February 2001 providing for the continued application of
safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries and
territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of
origin for the period 1 March to 30 June 2001 (OJ L 58 of
28.2.2001, p. 13).

**Action brought on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free**
**Zone) NV against the Commission of the European**
**Communities**

**Action brought on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A. against**
**(Case T-87/01)** **the Commission of the European Communities**

(2001/C 186/21) **(Case T-88/01)**

(2001/C 186/22)
_(Language of the case: Dutch)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- _(Language of the case: Spanish)_
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV, established at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by An action against the Commission of the European CommuniG. van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch. European Communities on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A.,
established in Madrid, represented by José Luis Baro´ Fuentes,
Miguel Angel Go´mez de Lian˜o y Botella and Fernando
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Rodrı´guez Carretero, abogados.

—
annul Regulation No 376/2001( [1] );
— The applicant claims that the Court should:
rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered

—
by the applicant as a result of the fact that, since 1 March annul Article 1 of the decision of 19 July 2000, inasmuch
2001, the importation of the products referred to in as it establishes that the provision of guarantees amountRegulation No 376/2001 has been prevented or restricted ing to EUR 35,80 million does not constitute State aid
in consequence of that regulation, and order that the within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty;
parties should seek to reach agreement on the extent of

—
the damage suffered by the applicant, and that, if no such annul Article 2 of the decision, inasmuch as it establishes
agreement is reached, the proceedings are to be resumed that the aid granted by Austria to LLG through the
within a time-limit to be specified by the Court, with a provision of a guarantee amounting to EUR 14,5 million
view to determining the quantum of the damage, and by WiBAG complies with the guarantee guidelines
further order the Community to pay the damages pro- approved by the Commission under number No 542/95;
visionally quantified and yet to be quantified, alternatively

—
to pay such compensation as the Court may deem fair annul Article 3 of the decision, inasmuch as it establishes
and equitable, together with interest thereon at the rate that the individual aid which Austria has granted in the
of 8 % per annum from the date of the application until form of aid amounting to EUR 0,4 million for land
payment in full; acquisition and in the form of equity capital amounting
to EUR 21,8 million is compatible with the common

—
order the Commission to pay the costs. market;