Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

16.3.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 68/17

—
grant the applicant a period of 12 months to submit The applicant claims that the Court should:
figures for its claims;

—
— annul the decision adopted on 26 September 2001 by
order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.
the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
and opposition decision No 601/2000 of 28 March
2000;
_Pleas in law and main arguments_

—
order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant is a smallholder in French Polynesia, where he
suffered damage as a result of the non-compliance in that
territory with Council Decisions 86/283/EEC( [1] ) and
91/482/EEC( [2] ) on the association of the PTOMs. The applicant
_Pleas in law and main arguments_
claims that the Commission has not fulfilled its obligations in
that it has not monitored sufficiently closely the local authorities in French Polynesia and the SOCREDO development
bank with regard to compliance with Community law and
has not required the application and publication of the Applicant for the Com- Chassot AG
abovementioned Council decisions. The Commission has thus
munity trade mark:
infringed the principle of good administration and the principle
of good faith. Moreover, the applicant complains that he The Community trade the verbal mark ‘HIPOVITON’ for
has been discriminated against by comparison with other
mark applied for: goods in Class 31 (feedingstuffs)
smallholders in French Polynesia.

Proprietor of the trade- the applicant
mark right opposed in
( [1] ) Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 on the association
the opposition proceedof the overseas countries and territories with the European
Economic Community (OJ 1986 L 175, p. 1). ings:
( [2] ) 91/482/EEC: Council Decision of 25 July 1991 on the association
of the overseas countries and territories with the European Trade-mark right oppo- the German verbal mark ‘HIPPOEconomic Community (OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1). sed: VIT’ for goods in Class 31
(feedingstuffs)

Decision of the Oppo- rejection of the opposition
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of rejection of the applicant’s appeal
Appeal:
**Action brought on 24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfel-**
**de GmbH, Unternehmen für Ernährung, against the Office** Grounds of claim: — infringement of Articles 8
**for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks** and 15 of Regulation (EC)
**and Designs)** No 40/94 ( [1] );

— misinterpretation of Arti**(Case T-334/01)** cle 15 of the regulation;

—
violation of the right to a fair
(2002/C 68/30)
hearing;

—
infringement of the first and
_(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)_
second sentences of
_of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has_
Article 74(1) of the regu_been drafted: German)_
lation;

—
infringement of Article 73 of
the regulation.
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
24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfelde GmbH, Unternehmen ( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
für Ernährung, of Hamburg (Germany), represented by Sabine Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Rojahn and Stefan Freytag, lawyers. A further party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Chassot AG of
Belp (Switzerland).