CELEX: C2001/161/43
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-49/01: Action brought on 1 March 2001 by P&O European Ferries (Portsmouth) Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

2.6.2001                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 161/19
application for suspension of operation of Commission Regu-                 Proprietor of an oppos-        Orsem Sarl, Neuilly sur Seine,
lation No 2081/2000 of 29 September 2000 introducing                        ing mark or of an oppos-       France
safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries                  ing sign:
and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumu-
lation of origin (OJ 2000 L 246 of 30.9.2000, p. 64), or for                Opposing mark or sign:         The Danish mark PREDONIUM,
any other interim measure to protect the interests of the                                                  the Greek mark PREDONIUM, the
applicant — the President of the Court of First Instance, made                                             Swedish mark PREDONIUM and
an order on 1 February 2001, the operative part of which is as                                             the United Kingdom mark PRE-
follows:                                                                                                   DONIUM for goods in Class 5
1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed;                      Decision of the Oppo-          opposition upheld and appli-
                                                                            sition Division:               cation rejected
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                            Decision of the Board of       rejection of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                            Appeal:
                                                                            Grounds of claim:              infringement of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                                           No 40/94 on the Community
                                                                                                           trade mark (Article 8(1)(b)) — no
                                                                                                           likelihood of confusion
Action brought on 22 January 2001 by Lichtwer Phar-
ma AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                           (Case T-10/01)
                          (2001/C 161/42)
(Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with                  Action brought on 1 March 2001 by P&O European
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the            Ferries (Portsmouth) Limited against the Commission of
                   application is drafted: German)                                             the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                        (Case T-49/01)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
22 January 2001 by Lichtwer Pharma AG, Berlin (Germany),                                             (2001/C 161/43)
represented by Robert Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwalt. The other
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was
Orsem Sarl., Neuilly sur Seine (France).
                                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     annul the decision adopted on 8 November 2000 by the                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation                European Communities on 1 March 2001 by P&O European
      in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in                   Ferries (Portsmouth) Limited, represented by Mark Clough QC
      appeal No R 586/1999-2;                                               and Julian Ellison, of Ashurst Morris Crisp.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            —     declare, pursuant to Article 232 (ex 175) of the EC Treaty
                                                                                  that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under
Applicant for the Com-          Lichtwer Pharma AG                                the Treaty by failing to define its position on the
munity mark:                                                                      applicant’s complaint dated 29 February 2000 against
                                                                                  Brittany Ferries, and/or at least that part of the complaint
Trade mark applied for:         the oral mark ‘SEDONIUM’ —                        dealing with the period up to 1995 outside the scope of
                                application No 312 447 for goods                  the Case C-31/98 procedure, and in particular by failing
                                in Class 5 (including medicinal                   to initiate the procedure provided for under Article 88(2)
                                products)                                         (ex 93(2)) of the EC Treaty;
 ---pagebreak--- C 161/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            2.6.2001
—     further, or in the alternative, to annul under Article 230          compatibility with the common market. It follows that the
      (ex 173) of the EC Treaty the implied decision of the               Commission has committed an error of law and a procedural
      Commission not to initiate the procedure provided for               irregularity by not initiating the procedure provided for under
      under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (ex93(2)) regarding            Article 88(2) (ex 93(2)) of the Treaty.
      the applicant’s complaint at all, or at least regarding that
      part of the applicant’s complaint dealing with the period
      up to 1995 outside the scope of the Case C-31/98
      procedure, (and/or the implied decision not to close the            (1) See Commission communication pursuant to Article 93(2) of the
      preliminary investigation procedure in any of the other                 EC Treaty to the other Member States and other interested parties
      ways available to it), contained in a letter dated 7 February           concerning aids in the shipping sector (State aids for the shipping
                                                                              company Brittany Ferries (BAI)), C 31/98, OJ C 244, 4.8.1998,
      2001;
                                                                              p. 9.
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 9 March 2001 by Asahi Vet SA against
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                    (Case T-55/01)
The applicant is a ferry operator which provides tourist and                                       (2001/C 161/44)
freight ferry services on certain routes between France and the
United Kingdom in the western end of the Channel. Its main
competitor is the French ferry operator Bretagne-Angleterre-
Irlande S.A. (‘Brittany Ferries’).                                                           (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties as brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 9 March 2001 by Asahi Vet SA,
In February 2000, the applicant submitted a complaint to the              Rubı́, Barcelona (Spain), represented by Rechtsanwalt Carsten
Commission against State aid granted to Brittany Ferries by               Bittner.
the French authorities. Prior to this complaint, the Commission
initiated a formal investigation procedure against certain State
aid granted to Brittany Ferries in 1998 (1). However, according           The applicant claims that the Court should:
to the applicant, a part of its complaint is not covered by this
procedure.
                                                                          —     annul the defendant’s decision of 29 January 2001
                                                                                rejecting the applicant’s request for an unlimited unauth-
                                                                                orisation in respect of ToyoCerin for rearing pigs, sows
                                                                                and piglets, and an interim authorisation for fattening
The applicant submits that by failing to define its position on                 chickens, laying hens, calves, fattening cattle, fattening
the complaint, the Commission has, in breach of Article 232                     rabbits and breeding rabbits;
EC, failed to act. In particular, the Commission has failed to
adopt one of the three decisions that it is required by the               —     require the defendant to propose to the Standing Com-
Court’s case law to take in order to close the preliminary                      mittee for Feedingstuffs under Article 23(3) of Directive
examination of State aid within a reasonable time when it has                   70/524/EEC that it be awarded an unlimited Community
serious doubts as to whether a measure constitutes aid and, if                  authorisation in respect of ToyoCerin for use with rearing
so, as to whether it is compatible with the common market.                      pigs, piglets and sows;
Each of such decisions is of direct and individual concern to
the applicant under Article 230 EC.
                                                                          —     require the defendant to propose to the Standing Com-
                                                                                mittee for Feedingstuffs under Article 23(3) of Directive
                                                                                70/524/EEC that it be awarded a temporary Community
                                                                                authorisation in respect of ToyoCerin for use on fattening
                                                                                chickens, laying hens, calves, fattening cattle, fattening
As far as the grounds for annulment are concerned, the
                                                                                rabbits and breeding rabbits;
applicant claims that it is clear from the correspondence and
meetings between the parties that the Commission had cause
to suspect the existence of State aid and to doubt its                    —     order the defendant to pay the costs.