Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 108/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 7.4.2001

**ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE** 9 January 2001 by Matratzen Concord Aktiengesellschaft,
Cologne (Germany), represented by Wolf-W. Wodrich,
**of 30 November 2000** Rechtsanwalt.

**in Case T-175/00: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of**
**the European Communities** ( [1] ) The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
was Hukla Germany S.A., Castellbisbal (Spain).
_**(Action for failure to act — Articles 81 and 82 EC — No**_
_**need to adjudicate — Article 86 EC — Admissibility)**_

The applicant claims that the Court should:
(2001/C 108/41)

—
_(Language of the case: English)_ annul the decision adopted on 31 October 2000 by the
defendant (Second Board of Appeal) in joined appeals
Nos R 728/1999-2 and R 792/1999-2;
In Case T-175/00: Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,
Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R.St John Murphy, Solicitor, 3 King’s Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London —
reject the opposition entered on 21 April 1998 by the
(United Kingdom), against Commission of the European
opposing party (Case No B 32500);
Communities (Agent: R. Lyal) — application for a declaration
that the Commission has failed to act by not taking a decision
on a complaint (IV/34.824 — Goldstein/GMC) against certain —
order the defendant to register the Community trade
anticompetitive practices, lodged by the applicant under
mark (pictorial mark) ‘MATRATZEN Markt CONCORD’
Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962,
(trade mark application No 395 632 of 10 October
First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty
1996) in the Register of Community trade marks;
(OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87) — the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, —
order the opposing party to pay all the costs and expenses
Registrar, has given an order on 30 November 2000, in which
it: of the proceedings before the Opposition Division and
the Board of Appeal and of the present court proceedings.
1. _There is no need to adjudicate on the claim for a declaration of_
_failure to act in so far as it relates to the Commission’s failure_
_to act in connection with Articles 81 and 82 EC._

2. _In so far as it is directed against the Commission’s failure to_ _Pleas in law and main arguments_
_act in connection with Article 86 EC, the application is_
_inadmissible._
Applicant for the Com- Matratzen Concord Aktienge3. _The parties shall bear their own costs._ munity mark: sellschaft

( [1] ) OJ C 285 of 7.10.00. Trade mark applied for: The pictorial mark ‘MATRATZEN
Markt CONCORD’ — trade mark
application No 395 632 for goods
in Classes 10, 20 and 24

Proprietor of an oppos- Hukla Germany S.A., Castellbis**Action brought on 9 January 2001 by Matratzen Concord** ing mark or of an oppos- bal, Spain
**Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for Harmonisation** ing sign:
**in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**
Opposing mark or sign: The Spanish registered mark
**(Case T-6/01)** ‘MATRATZEN’ for goods in Class
20
(2001/C 108/42)

Decision of the Oppo- Rejection of the application in
sition Division: respect of goods in Classes 20 and
_(Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with Article_
24. Continuation of the appli_131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the_
cation procedure in respect of
_application is drafted: German)_
goods in Class 10

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Decision of the Board of Appeal of the opposing party
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on Appeal: upheld

7.4.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 108/23

Grounds of claim: Infringement of Regulation (EC) In 1995, pursuant to Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17
No 40/94 on the Community he lodged a complaint with the Commission in respect of
trade mark (Article 8) — Infringe- certain allegedly anticompetitive rules applied by the General
ment of the EC Treaty (Articles Council of the Bar of England and Wales. The complaint related
28 and 29 EC) — No similarity particularly to the requirement that a barrister practising at
between the conflicting trade that Bar is to supply legal services only if briefed or instructed
marks — Impermissible splitting- by a professional client. The applicant contends that this rule
up of the mark into its individual constitutes a restriction of competition contrary to Article 81
component parts — Failure to EC, inasmuch as it deprives the consumers of legal services of
have regard to the case-law of the the ability to have access to the services provided by barristers
Court of Justice concerning the practising at that Bar.
overall impression given by a
mark — Right of a competitor in
the market to combine the name
By letter of 12 January 2001, the Commission rejected the
of its main products with its comapplicant’s complaint.
pany name — Change in the legal
position since registration of the
opposing mark.
In the present case, the applicant submits _inter alia_ that the
Commission infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC by wrongly
examining the validity of national legislation and by wrongly
assessing the data from which it may be concluded that the
essential elements of a situation, in which Articles 81, 82 and
86 EC apply, are in fact present. Furthermore, he asserts that
the Commission has misrepresented the Community nature
and effects of the legal framework at Community level
regulating the profession of lawyer in Directives 77/249/EEC,
**Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Anthony Gold-**
89/48/EEC and 98/5/EC.
**stein against the Commission of the European Communi-**
**ties**

**(Case T-18/01)**

(2001/C 108/43)

_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- **Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita Brands**
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the **International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and**
European Communities on 25 January 2001 by Anthony **Chiquita Italia, S.p.A. against the Commission of the**
Goldstein, represented by Mr R St J Murphy, Solicitor, of **European Communities**
Merriman White, London (UK).

**(Case T-19/01)**
The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
Annul the decision of the Commission of 12 January
2001 rejecting the complaint made pursuant to Regu- (2001/C 108/44)
lation No 17 by the applicant concerning infringement
of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General Council of the
Bar of England and Wales
_(Language of the case: English)_

—
Order the Commission to pay the costs

An action against the Commission of the European Communi_Pleas in law and main arguments_ ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita
Brands International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and
The applicant completed, in 1999, the Bar Vocational Course, Chiquita Italia, S.p.A., represented by Mr C Pouncey, Solicitor,
a prerequisite for admission to the Bar of England and Wales and Mr L Van Den Hende, Advocaat, of Herbert Smith, London
and the practice of law as a barrister. (UK).