Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 44/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 16.2.2002

Versorgungs- und Verkehrsgesellschaft mbH — DVV — pursuant to Articles 10(1), 13(1) and 4(4) of Council ReguStadtwerke, of Dessau (Germany), Neubrandenburger lation (EC) No 659/1999( [1] ). Had it done so, the Commission
Stadtwerke GmbH, of Neubrandenburg (Germany), Stadtwerke would then have been constrained, under the law applicable
Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, of Schwäbisch Hall (Germany), to grants of aid, to adopt a negative decision against the Federal
Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH, of Tübingen (Germany) and Republic of Germany on the facts as stated.
Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH, of Uelzen (Germany), represented
by D. Fouquet, lawyer.

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Treaty (now Article 88 EC) (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
The applicants claim that the Court should:

—
declare that, by failing, within two months after being
formally called upon by letter of 29 August 2001 to act
pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 232 EC, to
examine the complaint made on the basis of Articles 87
and 88 EC and to reach a decision in the light of that
examination, the Commission has infringed Article 232
EC; **Action brought on 28 November 2001 by Phillips-Van**
**Heusen Corporation against Office for the Harmonization**
**of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)**

—
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings,
including the costs incurred by the applicants, even in the
**(Case T-292/01)**
event that, following the bringing of the action, the
Commission takes action in such a way that, in the
opinion of the Court, the proceedings have become
(2002/C 44/38)
nugatory.

_(Language of the case: Italian)_

_Pleas in law and main arguments_
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicants are German public utilities producing their own
28 November 2001 by Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation of
electricity. Since the introduction of competition in the
New York (United States of America), represented by Fabrizio
electricity market, the applicants, as energy suppliers, have
Jacobacci. The other party in proceedings before the Combeen in competition with, in particular, the 19 existing nuclear
mission was: Pash Textilvertrieb und Einzelhandel GmbH of
power stations as regards the production of electricity in the
Munich (Germany)
Federal Republic of Germany.

The applicant claims that the Court should:
According to the applicants, the nuclear power station operators set aside reserves in their commercial and tax balance

—
annul Decision R 0740/2000-3 of the Third Board of
sheets in respect of the cost of having to close down at some
Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
future date and the disposal of irradiated fuel elements and
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2001
radioactive waste. The disposal and shutting-down costs are
notified on 28 September 2001 to the applicant;
allocated to the sales proceeds from continuous electricity
production. However, according to the applicants, the obli
—
gation under commercial law to set aside reserves affects, at definitively reject the opposition brought by the defendthe same time, the way in which the nuclear power station ant against registration of Community trade mark
operators are treated for tax purposes. As a result of the No 161331 BASS, on behalf of Phillips-Van Heusen
German tax rules, a significant part of the tax additionally Corporation, in respect of the whole of Class 25;
demanded is in fact made freely available to the nuclear power
station operators by virtue of the legislation on tax relief. — order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to register Community
trade mark No 161331 BASS;

The applicants assert that the exemption of reserves under

—
fiscal law in favour of nuclear power stations constitutes a order the defendant and the OHIM to pay, jointly or
grant by the Federal Republic of Germany of unlawful, non- severally, to the applicant the costs, expenses and fees
notified aid which is incompatible with the common market. incurred in both the present proceedings and the oppoThey maintain that the Commission was obliged to open a sition and appeal proceedings before the Office for
formal procedure against the Federal Republic of Germany Harmonization in the Internal Market.

16.2.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 44/21

_Pleas in law and main arguments_ The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of 29 January 2001 of the Head of
Applicant for the Com- The applicant
munity trade mark: Unit ADMIN B 3 fixing her place of recruitment at
Brussels and refusing to grant her the daily subsistence
The Community trade Word mark ‘BASS’ — application allowance;
mark concerned: No 161331, registration sought

—
in respect of goods in Class 25 annul the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint
(footwear and clothing) of 27 April 2001 against the original contested decision;

—
Proprietor of the right to Pash Textilvertrieb und Einzelhan- order the Commission to pay to the applicant the
the trade mark or sign del GmbH amounts to which she is entitled as a result of having
asserted by way of oppo- Rome as her place of recruitment, as set out in the
sition in the opposition grounds, and in particular the daily subsistence allowance,
proceedings: with default interest at 7 % per annum, as from the date
on which those amounts fell due until payment is made
Trade mark or sign German mark registered under in full;
asserted by way of oppo- the name ‘PASH’, registered in
sition in the opposition order to distinguish various — order the Commission to pay the costs.
proceedings: articles in international classes 18
and 25

Decision of the Oppo- Opposition dismissed _Pleas in law and main arguments_
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of Annulment of the decision of the The applicant was seconded to the Commission in Brussels for
three years before being engaged as a member of the auxiliary
Appeal: Opposition Division
staff. For that purpose, the applicant’s place of recruitment was
Grounds of claim: — Inconsistency between the set as Rome. The applicant was subsequently engaged as a
form of order sought and member of the temporary staff for an indeterminate period,
the order made, since the with Brussels as the place of recruitment. That decision is
opposition was not brought contested by the applicant.
against the ‘shoes’ mentioned in Class 25
In support of her application, the applicant pleads an error in
— Coexistence of the marks law as regards the concept of ‘residence’ and a manifest error
‘BASS’ and ‘PASH’ on the of assessment. According to the applicant, her residence in
German market Brussels was provisional during the entire period of her
engagement with the Commission in Brussels. In her sub— Misapplication of Ar- mission, the facts demonstrate that her habitual residence
remained Rome. Moreover, the applicant claims that the
ticle 8(1)(b) of Regulation
Commission illegally withdrew a decision giving rise to
(EC) No 40/94 (likelihood of
confusion). entitlement. Initially, the place of recruitment of the applicant
was Rome when she took up her duties as a member of
the temporary staff. That decision was withdrawn by the
subsequent contested decision not to grant the applicant
entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance.

**Action brought on 3 December 2001 by Donatella Ineich-**
**en against Commission of the European Communities**

**Action brought on 3 December 2001 by Lucı´a Aparicio**
**(Case T-293/01)**
**Chofré against Commission of the European Communities**

(2002/C 44/39)
**(Case T-294/01)**

_(Language of the case: French)_
(2002/C 44/40)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 December 2001 by Donatella
Ineichen, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert An action against the Commission of the European CommuniLucas, lawyer. ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the