Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

29.6.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 156/27

**Action brought on 14 March 2002 by Classen Holding** **Action brought on 19 March 2002 by Tetra Laval B.V.**
**KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal** **against the Commission of the European Communities**
**Market**

**(Case T-80/02)**
**(Case T-71/02)**

(2002/C 156/54)
(2002/C 156/53)

_(Language of the case: English)_ _(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Commission of the European CommuniMarket was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 March 2002 by Classen Holding
European Communities on 19 March 2002 by Tetra Laval
KG, represented by Mr Stephan von Petersdorff-Campen of
B.V., represented by Mr Alexandre Vandencasteele and Mr
Rospatt Osten Pross Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf (Germany).
Denis Waelbroeck (Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff), Mr
Andreas Weitbrecht, (Latham & Watkins) and Mr Sven Völcker
(Wilmer Cutler & Pickering) of Brussels (Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Office dated 14 December 2001 (Appeal No. R0810/
1999-2), registered letter of notification of the Decision

—
received on 14 January 2002; annul the contested Decision in its entirety;

— order the Office to bear the costs of the action. —
order the Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_
_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant of the Com- International Paper Company
munity trade mark:
The applicant in the present case is primarily active in
Trade mark concerned: Word mark BECKET carton packaging. It envisaged a concentration with another
EXPRESSION — Application No company, Sidel, mainly active in (polyester) packaging equip93880 for certain goods in ment. This concentration was declared to be incompatible
class 16 with the common market and the EEA Agreement by the
Commission. The applicant has introduced an application for
Proprietor of an oppos- Classen Holding KG annulment of this Decision (Case T-5/02; Communication
ing trade mark or sign: published in OJ C 68, p. 19).

Opposing trade mark or Word mark Expression for certain
sign: goods in class 16
In the present case, the applicant contests the decision of the
Commission to oblige the applicant to sell Sidel as a measure
Decision of the Oppo- Rejection of the opposition taken to restore the conditions of effective competition
sition Division: pursuant to Article 8(4) of Council Regulation 4064/89( [1] )
(Merger Control Regulation).
Decision of the Board of To declare the appeal inadmissible
Appeal: and reject the request for restitutio
in integrum
The applicant submits in the first place that the contested
Pleas in law relied on: Incorrect interpretation of Article Decision is devoid of any basis, as it is the direct consequence
of the earlier Decision declaring the concentration incompat78 of Council Regulation No 40/
ible with the common market. This earlier Decision being void
94 — Infringement of the appliitself, according to the applicant, it cannot serve as basis for
cant’s right to due process of law
the Decision contested in this case. The applicant refers in this
respect to the pleas and arguments stated in its application in
case T-5/02.