Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 169/16 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 13.7.2002

_Pleas in law and main arguments_ in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) did not
infringe Article 7 (1) (c) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community
The judgment of the Court of First Instance infringed trade mark( [2] ) in adopting its decision of 28 February
Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(3) EC), as well 2000 (Case R 423/1999-2) with the exception as regards
as the ‘right to sound administration’ and the Commission’s goods in the categories ‘manuals and publications’;
‘general duty of supervision’, in so far as it inferred that
individuals have a right to have their complaint under 2. for the rest, annul the decision of the Second Board of
Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC) dealt with and Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
a corresponding right of action. Moreover, it erroneously Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2000
inferred that complaints by individuals in the context of (Case R 423/1999-2);
Article 90 of the EC Treaty are dismissed by a decision
addressed to the complainant. In that connection the Court of 3. order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
First Instance has at any rate infringed Article 90(3). If so, and
(Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs both at first
in so far as it based its conclusions thereon it has also infringed
instance and on appeal.
the ‘right to sound administration’ and/or the ‘general duty of
supervision’. Finally, the Court infringed Article 173(4) of the
EC Treaty (now Article 230(4) EC) by assuming (in the
alternative) that max.mobil is individually concerned by the
contested letter. _Pleas in law and main arguments_

The Appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance
( [1] ) Case T-54/99 max.mobil Telekommunikation Service GmbH v
misinterpreted Article 7 (1) (c) of Regulation 40/94 when it
Commission [2002] ECR II-0000.
held that the aforementioned article prevents the signs or
indications referred to in that provision from being reserved
to one undertaking alone because they have been registered as
a mark and that the provision thus pursues an aim which is in
the public interest, namely that such signs or indications may
be freely used by all.

**Appeal brought on 25 April 2002 by Streamserve Inc.** In the Appellant’s view the criteria applied by the Court of
**against the judgment delivered on 27 February 2002 by** First Instance in the application of Article 7 (1) (c) to the facts
**the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of** of the case are too severe.
**the European Communities in case T-106/00** ( [1] ) **between**
**Streamserve Inc. and the Office for Harmonization in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)** ( [1] ) OJ C 176, 24.6.2000, p. 29.
( [2] ) OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1.

**(Case C-150/02 P)**

(2002/C 169/29)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 February **Action brought on 26 April 2002 by the Commission**
2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance **of the European Communities against the Republic of**
of the European Communities in case T-106/00 between **Austria**
Streamserve Inc. and the Office for Harmonization in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), was
**(Case C-155/02)**
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 April 2002 by Streamserve Inc., established in
Raleigh, North Carolina (United States of America), represented (2002/C 169/30)
by J. Kääriäinen and R. Berzelius, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
The Appellant claims that the Court should: the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 April
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
1. annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,
27 February 2002 in case T-106/00, Streamserve Inc. v. with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis
OHIM (‘STREAMSERVE’), in so far as it found that the Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C 254,
Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization Kirchberg, Luxembourg.