CELEX: C2000/102/59
Language: en
Date: 2000-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-360/99: Action brought on 24 December 1999 by Community Concepts AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

8.4.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 102/29
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)         Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 9
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94           cerned:                       (including     recorded     storage
                                                                                                      media), 16 (including printing
                              — Incorrect      application      of                                    products), 41 (including pub-
                                  Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation                                       lishing services) and 42 (including
                                  (EC) No 40/94                                                       editing services)
                                                                        Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
                                                                        before the Board of           examiner
                                                                        Appeal:
                                                                        Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                                                                                          of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                                      — Incorrect       application    of
Action brought on 22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch                                                      Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
VerlagsgmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the                                                   (EC) No 40/94
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                        (Case T-358/99)
                        (2000/C 102/58)
                                                                        Action brought on 24 December 1999 by Community
                  (Language of the case: German)                        Concepts AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                 Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                  (Case T-360/99)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH, of                                              (2000/C 102/59)
Perchtoldsdorf (Republic of Austria), represented by Hans
Georg Zeiner and Brigitte Heaman-Dunn, Rechtsanwälte, of
Messrs Zeiner & Zeiner, Vienna, with an address for service in                            (Language of the case: German)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Feider, of Messrs Beghin,
Feider, Allen & Overy, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel.                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             24 December 1999 by Community Concepts AG, of Munich
                                                                        (Federal Republic of Germany) (formerly: Touchdown
— amend the decision adopted on 21 October 1999 by the                  Gesellschaft für erfolgsorientiertes Marketing mbH), represent-
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in            ed by Friederike Bahr, Rechtsanwältin, of BBLP Beiten Burk-
    the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in appeal             hardt Mittl & Wegener, Munich, with an address for service in
    No R 351/1999-3, in such a way that there are no                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Decker, Braun &
    obstacles under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Community            Wagner, 16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse.
    Trade Mark Regulation to registration of the Community
    trade mark UNIVERSALKOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICH-                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
    NIS (application No 455873);
                                                                        — partially annul the decision adopted on 15 October
— alternatively, annul the decision adopted on 21 October                   1999 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
    1999 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for                     Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
    Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                   Designs) in case No R 204/1999-3;
    Designs) in appeal No R 351/1999-3;
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The trade mark con-           The verbal mark ‘investorworld’
                                                                        cerned:                       — application No 924670
The trade mark con-           verbal      mark      ‘UNIVERSAL-
cerned:                       KOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICH-                   Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Class 36
                              NIS’ — application No 455873              cerned:                       (including insurance and finance)
 ---pagebreak--- C 102/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.4.2000
Decision         contested     Refusal of registration by the            In support of their application, the applicants put forward, in
before the Board of            examiner                                  essence, the following pleas:
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)         — Breach of essential procedural requirements:
                                   of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                               — Incorrect      application      of          The procedure conducted prior to the adoption of the
                                   Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation             contested decision was vitiated by substantive procedural
                                   (EC) No 40/94                             defects, since the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure were
                                                                             infringed in several instances.
                                                                         — Violation of the free exercise of the parliamentary mandate:
                                                                             The powers of investigation and seizure granted by
Action brought on 21 January 2000 by Willi Rothley and                       the contested decision implicitly extend to cover the
70 other Members of the European Parliament against the                      performance by Members of their duties, without any
                      European Parliament                                    criteria for such measures having been laid down with the
                                                                             requisite normative clarity and certainty. In addition, the
                          (Case T-17/00)                                     investigatory powers of the OLAF are disproportionate,
                                                                             since they may be exercised simply on the grounds of mere
                        (2000/C 102/60)                                      irregularities.
                                                                             The obligation, contained in Article 2(1) of the decision,
                   (Language of the case: German)                            to provide information in relation to any relevant miscon-
                                                                             duct, even of a non-criminal nature, means that the
An action against the European Parliament was brought before                 personnel of the Parliament and staff working for Members
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                   are required constantly to monitor the performance by
Willi Rothley and 70 other Members of the European Parlia-                   Members of their duties. This will encourage ‘snooping’
ment, represented by Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch,                 and informing, thereby prejudicing the general ability of
Rechtsanwälte, of Gaedertz Rechtsanwälte, 35 Avenue de                       the Parliament to function.
Tervuren, Brussels.
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              — Infringement of parliamentary immunity:
— annul the European Parliament’s decision of 18 November
                                                                             Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities
    1999 amending the Rules of Procedure pursuant to the
                                                                             of the European Communities affords Members of the
    Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 concerning
    internal investigations conducted by the European Anti-                  Parliament comprehensive immunity from criminal pros-
                                                                             ecution of any kind. Subparagraph (b) of Article 10, which,
    Fraud Office (OLAF);
                                                                             in contrast to subparagraph (a), does not refer to national
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                      rights of immunity, creates a status of immunity specific
                                                                             to the Communities which also affords Members of the
                                                                             Parliament protection against the investigatory activities of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              the OLAF.
In adopting the contested decision, the European Parliament              — Infringement of the parliamentary right of inquiry:
has fulfilled its obligation under the Interinstitutional Agree-
ment. According to that agreement, each of the Community
institutions signatories thereto is required to bring into force,            The investigatory powers of the OLAF laid down in the
by means of the adoption of an internal decision, the                        contested decision and in the corresponding rules of
implementing rules necessary in order to ensure the smooth                   conduct imposed on Members infringe the parliamentary
operation of the internal investigations carried out by the                  right of inquiry provided for in the first paragraph of Article
OLAF. The action for annulment is directed, in particular,                   193 EC, which the Parliament exercises, in particular, by
against the obligations imposed on the applicants by the                     setting up temporary committees of inquiry. The work of
decision, requiring them to provide information, to offer                    those committees could be substantially hindered if it were
cooperation and to exercise tolerance in connection with the                 not possible for a committee of inquiry and its members
OLAF’s investigatory powers within the domain of the internal                to observe their duty of confidentiality when dealing
affairs of the Parliament. The applicants claim that those                   with the OLAF. In addition, this affects the institutional
obligations represent an impermissible restriction on their                  equilibrium between Community institutions. The Parlia-
status as Members of Parliament, particularly as regards the                 ment should not be subject to the supervisory power of
free exercise of their mandate and their immunity.                           the executive, of which the OLAF notionally forms part.