Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

10.5.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/37

**Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister**
**AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**

**(Case T-81/03)**

(2003/C 112/71)

_(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)_
_of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was_
_submitted: German)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister AG, Wolfenbüttel
(Germany), represented by Chr. Drzymalla, lawyer. Licorera
Zacapaneca S.A., Zacapa (Guatemala) was also a party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) of 19 December 2002 (Case R 412/
2002-1);

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Com- Licorera Zacapaneca S.A.
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark Figurative mark ‘VENADO’ —
sought: Application No 986455 lodged in
respect of goods in Classes 32 and
33 (inter alia mineral and aerated
waters and other non-alcoholic
drinks, rum, rum-based liqueurs,
brandy)

Proprietor of mark or The applicant
sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in Figurative mark consisting of a
opposition: stag’s head with a cross, registered
in respect of goods in Classes 18,
25, 32 and 33 (inter alia
umbrellas, clothing, nonalcoholic beverages in so far as
included in Class 32, wines and
spirits) — Trade mark No 337337

Decision of the Oppo- Registration refused
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of Rejection of the applicant’s oppoAppeal: sition

Pleas in law: — Infringement of Article 73 of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94;

— Misapplication of
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94;

— Incorrect assessment of the
similarity of the marks.

**Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister**
**AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**

**(Case T-82/03)**

(2003/C 112/72)

_(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)_
_of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was_
_submitted: German)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister AG, Wolfenbüttel
(Germany), represented by Chr. Drzymalla, lawyer. Licorera
Zacapaneca S.A., Zacapa (Guatemala) was also a party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) of 19 December 2002 (Case R 382/
2002-1);

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

C 112/38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.5.2003

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Com- Licorera Zacapaneca S.A.
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark Figurative mark ‘VENADO’ —
sought: Application No 986000 lodged in
respect of goods in Classes 32 and
33 (inter alia mineral and aerated
waters and other non-alcoholic
drinks, rum, rum-based liqueurs,
brandy)

Proprietor of mark or The applicant
sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in Figurative mark consisting of a
opposition: stag’s head with a cross, registered
in respect of goods in Classes 18,
25, 32 and 33 (inter alia
umbrellas, clothing, nonalcoholic beverages in so far as
included in Class 32, wines and
spirits) — Trade mark No 337337

Decision of the Oppo- Registration refused
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of Rejection of the applicant’s oppoAppeal: sition

Pleas in law: — Infringement of Article 73 of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94;

— Misapplication of
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94;

— Incorrect assessment of the
similarity of the marks.

**Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Maurizio Turco**
**against the Council of the European Union**

**(Case T-84/03)**

(2003/C 112/73)

_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 28 February 2003 by Maurizio Turco,
Pulsano, Italy, represented by Mr O. W. Brouwer and Mr
Thomas Janssens, Lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the defendant refusing the applicant
access to certain legislative proposals containing the
identity of Member States’ positions, and to a legal
opinion drawn up by the Council’s Legal Service.

—
order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant is an Italian Member of the European Parliament.
On 22 October 2002 the applicant submitted a request to the
defendant requesting access to the documents appearing on
the agenda of the 2455th meeting of the Council (Justice and
Home Affairs) which took place in Luxembourg on 14 and
15 October 2002. In its reply, dated 5 November 2002, the
defendant indicated that full access could be granted to most
of the documents requested by the applicant. However, with
regard to three legislative proposals, the defendant indicated
that the applicant could be granted only partial access, and in
particular that access could not be granted to those parts of
the proposals identifying the positions taken by the national
delegations on the subject matters under discussion. The
defendant further refused to grant access to a fourth document
which contained a legal opinion of the defendant’s legal
service.

In support of his application the applicant submits the
following contentions:

—
By refusing access to the documents mentioned above,
the defendant violated Articles 4, paragraphs 2 and 3 of
Regulation EC/1049/2001 ( [1] ) as well as the principle of
proportionality.

—
the defendant violated Article 253 EC and Article 7,
paragraphs 1 and 2 of Regulation EC/1049/2001 in that
it failed to provide sufficient reasons for its Decision

—
the defendant violated citizens’ fundamental political and
civil rights as guaranteed by international and European
conventions and the European Union treaties, in particular Article 6 EU, by censoring Member States’ positions
when acting as a legislator.

( [1] ) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
of 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).