Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 144/58 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 15.6.2002

market and with the EEA Agreement, subject to compliance was likely to strengthen even further SEB’s position on the
with the undertakings given. The applicant is challenging that relevant markets.
decision.

( [1] ) Commission Notice on remedies acceptable under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 and under Commission Regulation (EC)
No 447/98 (text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2001 C 68, p. 3).

In support of its application the applicant relies first of all
on an infringement of essential procedural requirements in
accepting the undertakings proposed by SEB late. Undertakings
must be submitted within three weeks from notification of a
transaction. The Commission allowed SEB to submit new
phase one undertakings five weeks after the transaction was **Action brought on 12 April 2002 by Avex Inc. against the**
notified. The applicant claims that those undertakings could in **Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade**
no circumstances be regarded as enhancing the original **Marks and Designs)**
undertakings but constituted new undertakings.

**(Case T-115/02)**

(2002/C 144/113)

_(Language of the case: German)_
Secondly, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in
law in deciding to authorise the operation without carrying
out an in-depth investigation. The applicant claims that the
conditions for authorisation in phase one were not met. The
undertakings proposed did not definitively resolve any serious An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
doubts as to the compatibility of the transaction with the Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
common market, as required by the Commission Notice on Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
remedies( [1] ). 12 April 2002 by Avex Inc., Tokyo (Japan), represented by
J. Hofmann, lawyer. Adolf Ahlers AG, Herford (Germany) was
an additional party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:
Thirdly, the applicant considers that the Commission made a

—
manifest error of assessment in that the undertakings imposed annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
on SEB are insufficient to remove the competition concerns. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
The Commission therefore authorised the transaction without 11 February 2002 (Case No R 634/2001-1) on the
any undertakings on certain markets where there were serious registration of the word/figurative sign ‘a’ as a Community
competition concerns. Moreover, an undertaking to grant a trade mark;
trade mark licence is not by its nature sufficient to resolve the

—
competition concerns that the transaction raises. The period order the defendant to pay the costs.
for which the licence is granted is also insufficient for the
licensee to switch Moulinex’s products to its own brand in a
market characterised by strong brand loyalty. Furthermore, the
undertaking to supply the German market will have the effect
_Pleas in law and main arguments_
of strengthening SEB/Moulinex’s position on that market.
Finally, the fact that the Commission agreed to the same trade
mark being used by different companies within the European Applicant seeking Com- Avex Inc.
Union is liable to lead to coordinated behaviour by SEB/ munity trade mark:
Moulinex and the licensees.
Community trade mark The figurative mark ‘a’ for goods
sought: in Classes 9, 16, 25, 35 and 41
( _inter alia_, clothing, shoe-related
items, shoes and boots) — application no 863142

Fourthly, the applicant considers that the Commission erred Proprietor of mark or Adolf Ahlers AG
in law by failing to examine the extent to which the derisory sign right cited in the
sum paid and the financial aid provided by the French State opposition proceedings:

15.6.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 144/59

Mark or sign right cited The German national figurative but was mislaid within the Commission’s services. The appliin opposition: marks ‘a’ for goods in Class 25 cant was thus unable properly to discharge his financial
( _inter alia_, clothing) obligations and was required to pay a penalty. As the
administrative fault on the Commission’s part is proved, the
Decision of Opposition Refusal of application for regis- applicant is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and
Division: tration of mark non-pecuniary harm sustained.

Decision of Board of Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal: Opposition Division with respect
to goods in Classes 9, 16, 35 and
41; affirmation of the decision
with respect to goods in Class 25

Pleas in law: — No similarity with the relevant goods in Class 25
**Action brought on 11 April 2002 by San Paolo S.r.l.**

—
Significant difference from **against the Commission of the European Communities**
the figurative marks

**(Case T-121/02)**

(2002/C 144/115)

**Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Antonio Aresu** _(Language of the case: Italian)_
**against Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-116/02)**

An action against the Commission of the European Communi(2002/C 144/114) ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 April 2002 by San Paolo S.r.l.,
represented by Professor Franco Gallo, Gabriele Escalar and
_(Language of the case: French)_
Professor Adriano Rossi, Lawyers.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- The applicant claims that the Court should:
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 April 2002 by Antonio Aresu, —
annul the decision of the Commission of the European
residing in Brussels, represented by Sergio Diana, avocat.
Communities of 11 December 2001 no C54/A/2000/EC,
unpublished, declaring incompatible with the internal
market the system of State aid laid down by Italian
The applicant claims that the Court should:
legislation in the form of tax advantages for banks and
— banking institutions;
order the Commission to make reparation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm sustained by the applicant,

—
amounting to EUR 353; order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
and all consequential costs.

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.

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

The applicant is an official of the Commission and at the
The main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case
material time was on temporary secondment to the Court of
T-36/02 ABI v Commission( [1] ).
Justice.

In support of his claim for damages, the applicant alleges that ( [1] ) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002, p. 14.
the Commission’s mail service received a letter from an Italian
professional body addressed to the applicant and containing a
demand for payment. The letter did not reach the applicant