Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 144/40 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 15.6.2002

2. _Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those_ 3. _Orders the interveners to bear their own costs._
_incurred by the applicants._

( [1] ) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000. ( [1] ) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE**

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE**
**26 February 2002**

**27 February 2002**
**in Case T-17/00: Willi Rothley e.a. v European Parlia-**
**ment** ( [1] )

**in Case T-34/00: Eurocool Logistik GmbH v Office for**
**Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and**
_**(Measure of the Parliament — Action for annulment —**_
**Designs) (OHIM)** ( [1] )
_**Admissibility — Immunity of Members of the Parliament**_
_**— European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Powers of**_
_**investigation)**_
_**(Community trade mark — EUROCOOL — Observance of**_
_**the rights of defence — Absolute ground for refusal —**_
(2002/C 144/84) _**Distinctive character — Article (7)(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)**_
_**No 40/94)**_

_(Language of the case: German)_
(2002/C 144/85)

_(Language of the case: German)_
In Case T-17/00, Willi Rothley, residing at Rockenhausen
(Germany), and the 70 other applicants whose names appear
in the Annex hereto, represented by H.-J. Rabe and G. Berrisch,
lawyers, v European Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo and
H. Krück), supported by Council of the European Union
(Agents: J. Aussant, M. Bauer and I. Dı´ez Parra), Commission In Case T-34/00, Eurocool Logistik GmbH, established in Linz
of the European Communities (Agents: J.-L. Dewost, (Austria), represented by G. Secklehner, lawyer, with an address
H.-P. Hartvig and U. Wölker), Kingdom of the Netherlands for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation in the
(Agents: H. G. Sevenster and J. van Bakel) and French Republic Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
(Agents: G. de Bergues, S. Pailler, C. Vasak and L. Bernheim): O. Montalto, E. Joly and G. Schneider): Action brought against
Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
18 November 1999 on the amendments to the Rules of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Procedure following the Interinstitutional Agreement of Designs) of 9 December 1999 (Case R 233/1999-1), concern25 May 1999 between the Parliament, the Council and the ing registration of the term EUROCOOL as a Community trade
Commission on the internal investigations conducted by the mark, Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), Court of First Instance P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı´a- Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Valdecasas and J. D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis- given a judgment on 27 February 2002, in which:
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 February
2002, in which it:

1. _Annuls paragraph 1 of the operative part of the decision of the_
1. _Dismisses the action as inadmissible;_ _First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the_
_Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 December_
_1999 (Case R 233/1999-1);_
2. _Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and those incurred_
_by the defendant in the main proceedings and in the application_
_for interim relief;_ 2. _Dismisses the remainder of the application;_

15.6.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 144/41

3. _Orders the defendant to pay the costs._ **JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE**

**27 February 2002**
( [1] ) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.

**in Case T-106/00: Streamserve Inc. v Office for Harmonis-**
**ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**
**(OHIM)** ( [1] )

_**(Community trade mark — Term STREAMSERVE — Absol-**_
_**ute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of**_
**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE** _**Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Prior national registrations —**_
_**Principle of non-discrimination)**_

**27 February 2002**

(2002/C 144/87)
**in Case T-79/00: Rewe Zentral AG v Office for Harmonis-**
**ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**
**(OHIM)** ( [1] )
_(Language of the case: English)_

_**(Community trade mark — ‘LITE’ — Observance of the**_
_**rights of defence — Immaterial plea — Absolute ground for**_
_**refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)**_

In Case T-106/00, Streamserve Inc., established in Raleigh,
(2002/C 144/86) North Carolina (United States of America), represented by
M. Nedstrand, lawyer, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. di Carlo and G. Humphreys): Action
_(Language of the case: German)_ brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2000 (Case R 423/19992) concerning registration of the term STREAMSERVE as a
Community trade mark, Court of First Instance (Fourth
In Case T-79/00, Rewe Zentral AG, established in Cologne Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and
(Germany), represented by M. Kinkeldey, lawyer, v Office for R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 March 2002, in
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: initially V. Melgar and P. von Kapff, which it:
and, subsequently, Melgar and G. Schneider): Action brought
against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) of 27 January 2000 (Case R 275/1999-3) concerning 1. _Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office_
the registration of ‘LITE’ as a Community trade mark, the _for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and_
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: _Designs) of 28 February 2000 (Case R 423/1999-2) as_
P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, _regards goods in the categories ‘manuals’ and ‘publications’;_
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 27 February 2002, in which it:
2. _For the rest, dismisses the application;_

1. _Dismisses the application;_ 3. _Orders the applicant to bear it own costs and to pay two thirds_
_of the defendant’s costs and orders the defendant to bear one_
2. _Orders each party to bear its own costs._ _third of its own costs._

( [1] ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
( [1] ) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.