CELEX: C2002/068/30
Language: en
Date: 2002-03-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-334/01: Action brought on 24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfelde GmbH, Unternehmen für Ernährung, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

16.3.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 68/17
—      grant the applicant a period of 12 months to submit                The applicant claims that the Court should:
       figures for its claims;
                                                                          —     annul the decision adopted on 26 September 2001 by
—      order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.                   the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonis-
                                                                                ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                and opposition decision No 601/2000 of 28 March
                                                                                2000;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant is a smallholder in French Polynesia, where he
suffered damage as a result of the non-compliance in that
territory with Council Decisions 86/283/EEC (1) and
91/482/EEC (2) on the association of the PTOMs. The applicant             Pleas in law and main arguments
claims that the Commission has not fulfilled its obligations in
that it has not monitored sufficiently closely the local auth-
orities in French Polynesia and the SOCREDO development
bank with regard to compliance with Community law and
has not required the application and publication of the                   Applicant for the Com-        Chassot AG
abovementioned Council decisions. The Commission has thus                 munity trade mark:
infringed the principle of good administration and the principle
of good faith. Moreover, the applicant complains that he
                                                                          The Community trade           the verbal mark ‘HIPOVITON’ for
has been discriminated against by comparison with other
                                                                          mark applied for:             goods in Class 31 (feedingstuffs)
smallholders in French Polynesia.
                                                                          Proprietor of the trade-      the applicant
( 1) Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 on the association
                                                                          mark right opposed in
     of the overseas countries and territories with the European          the opposition proceed-
     Economic Community (OJ 1986 L 175, p. 1).                            ings:
(2) 91/482/EEC: Council Decision of 25 July 1991 on the association
     of the overseas countries and territories with the European          Trade-mark right oppo-        the German verbal mark ‘HIPPO-
     Economic Community (OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1).                            sed:                          VIT’ for goods in Class 31
                                                                                                        (feedingstuffs)
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         rejection of the opposition
                                                                          sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of      rejection of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                          Appeal:
Action brought on 24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfel-
de GmbH, Unternehmen für Ernährung, against the Office                    Grounds of claim:             —     infringement of Articles 8
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks                                                         and 15 of Regulation (EC)
                             and Designs)                                                                     No 40/94 (1);
                                                                                                        —     misinterpretation of Arti-
                           (Case T-334/01)                                                                    cle 15 of the regulation;
                                                                                                        —     violation of the right to a fair
                            (2002/C 68/30)                                                                    hearing;
(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)                                      —     infringement of the first and
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has                                             second       sentences        of
                                                                                                              Article 74(1) of the regu-
                         been drafted: German)
                                                                                                              lation;
                                                                                                        —     infringement of Article 73 of
                                                                                                              the regulation.
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
24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfelde GmbH, Unternehmen                     (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
für Ernährung, of Hamburg (Germany), represented by Sabine                    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Rojahn and Stefan Freytag, lawyers. A further party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Chassot AG of
Belp (Switzerland).