Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 227/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 11.8.2001

In support of its claim, the applicant pleads infringement of Trade marks objected to Verbal mark ‘Saint-Hubert 41’ —
Article 87(1) and (3)(c) of the EC Treaty. According to the in the opposition pro- Decision of 9 March 2001 in
applicant, the Commission, in its assessment of the aid cedure: procedure R-127/2000-1
awarded, did not take account of the specific, more expensive
production methods of the applicant required by the Nether- Proprietor of the marks the applicant
lands authorities whereby the smell is reduced. According to objected to:
the applicant, this method of production is not obligatory in
the other Member States, as a result of which production is Decision of the Oppo- rejection of the applicant’s oppocheaper. Furthermore, the applicant pleads infringement of sition Division: sition to the application for registhe Commission Decision of 6 July 1989 approving the tration of the mark ‘Hubert’
Bijdrageregeling Proefprojecten Mestverwerking and of
Article 88 of the EC Treaty. Finally, the applicant alleges Decision of the Board of rejection of the appeal lodged by
infringement of the duty to state reasons, the principle of Appeal: the applicant
legitimate expectations and the right to a fair hearing.

Grounds of claim: violation of the notion of ‘likelihood of confusion’ referred to in
Article 8(1)(b) of the Community
Trade Mark Regulation ( [1] )

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
**Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A. against**
**the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market**

**(Case T-110/01)**

(2001/C 227/50)

**Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelmetalle**
**GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-**
_(Language of the case: French)_ **munities**

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal **(Case T-111/01)**
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A.,
established at Ludres (France), represented by Thierry van Innis (2001/C 227/51)
and Geert Glas, avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
_(Language of the Case: German)_
The applicant claims that the Court should:

— An action against the Commission of the European Communiannul the decision adopted on 9 March 2001 in proties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
cedure R-127/2000-1;
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelme— talle GmbH, of Halsbrücke (Germany), represented by Dr Peter
order the Office to pay all the costs.
von Woedtke, lawyer.

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

—
annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities of 28 March 2001 (Decision C(2001)
Applicant for the Com- France Distribution
1028) on the State aid granted by Germany in favour of
munity trade mark:
EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH & Co. Management KG (now
Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH, together with Zeitzer
The Community trade the semi-figurative mark ‘Hubert’ Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte GmbH, LandTechnik Schlüter
mark concerned: — application No 108530 GmbH, ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik GmbH, SKL Motorenund Systembautechnik GmbH, SKL Spezialapparatebau
Goods or service con- various food products including GmbH, Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH, Saxonia Edelcerned: milk, other dairy products, vin- metalle GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH) —
egar and sauces, together with State aid No C41/99 (EXN 49/95) Germany.
hotel and catering services

—
(Classes 29, 30 and 42) order the defendant to pay the costs.