CELEX: C2002/109/100
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-20/02: Action brought on 30 January 2002 by Interquell GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

C 109/52               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.5.2002
Action brought on 30 January 2002 by Interquell GmbH                     Grounds of claim:             —     incorrect application of
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                         Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                               (EC) No 40/94 (1);
                                                                                                       —     infringement of Regulation
                          (Case T-20/02)                                                                     (EC) No 40/94 on account
                                                                                                             of failure to comply with
                                                                                                             Article 12 thereof.
                        (2002/C 109/100)
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)           Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
                       been drafted: German)
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                   Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Sumitomo Chemi-
30 January 2002 by Interquell GmbH, of Wehringen (Germ-                  cal Co., Ltd against the Commission of the European
any), represented by G.J. Hodapp, lawyer. A further party to                                        Communities
the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was SCA Nutrition
Ltd, of Lichfield (United Kingdom).                                                                (Case T-22/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                      (2002/C 109/101)
—     annul Decision R 264/2002-2 adopted on 27 November                                   (Language of the case: English)
      2001 by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for
      Harmonisation in the Internal Market;
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 7 February 2002 by Sumitomo
                                                                         Chemical Co., Ltd, represented by Mr Martin Klusmann
                                                                         and Ms Vanessa Turner of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Düsseldorf (Germany).
Applicant for the Com-         the applicant                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
munity trade mark:
                                                                         —     annul the defendant’s Decision C(2001)3695-final of
The Community trade            the pictorial mark ‘HAPPY DOG’                  21 November 2001 in Case No. COMP/E-1/37.512 —
mark applied for:              for goods in Class 31 (feeding-                 Vitamins as far as Sumitomo Chemical Company is
                               stuffs for dogs) — application                  concerned
                               No 290577
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Proprietor of the trade-       SCA Nutrition Ltd
mark right opposed in
the opposition proceed-
ings:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Trade-mark            right    the United Kingdom verbal and
opposed:                       pictorial marks ‘HAPPIDOG’ for            The contested Decision in the present case is the same as in
                               goods in Class 31 (feedingstuffs          case T-15/02 BASF/Commission (1).
                               for dogs)
Decision of the Oppo-          rejection of the trade mark               In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits that:
sition Division:               application
                                                                         —     The Commission was time-barred from taking the prohib-
Decision of the Board of       rejection of the applicant’s appeal             ition Decision. Contrary to the defendant’s view that the
Appeal:                                                                        rules on limitation periods have no bearing on the