CELEX: C2003/184/106
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-194/03: Action brought on 30 May 2003 by Il Ponte Finanziaria S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

2.8.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 184/49
The application for increase in capacity of the applicant was              —     order the Commission to pay him EUR 1 as token
submitted by Ireland to the European Commission, who rejected                    damages for the harm suffered;
it in the contested decision.
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
In support of its present application, the applicant submits that
the Commission erred in law and in fact. According to the
applicant, the increase in capacity complies with the provisions
of Article 4(2) of Council Decision 97/413/EEC and is there-
fore eligible for approval.                                                Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission                      In support of his action, the applicant pleads breach of the
violated the principle of legal certainty, the applicant's legit-          obligation to state reasons in that the appeal assessor, when
imate expectations and the principle of non-retroactivity.                 drawing up the applicant's report for 1999 to 2001, did not
According to the applicant, the Commission applied criteria                indicate the reasons why he did not take account of the views
which were not in existence at the time the replacement vessel             of the persons consulted or of the difficult working conditions.
was ordered or at the time the application for increase in                 Nor did he explain precisely why the general assessment made
capacity was submitted to the Commission.                                  by him was less favourable than that appearing in the staff
                                                                           report drawn up before the appeal to the Joint Committee on
                                                                           Staff Reports.
In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission had
regard to the nature of the applications for increase prior to
                                                                           The applicant also pleads the non-material damage suffered by
adopting the said criteria and applied criteria that discriminated
                                                                           reason of the belated drawing up of his staff report.
against the applicant. The applicant claims that the exception
for vessels lost at sea and allowing an increase in tonnage in
respect of these new vessels constitutes an unjustified discrimi-
nation.
The applicant also submits that the Commission violated the
principle of proportionality, failed to give adequate or sufficient
reasons and denied the applicant's right to be heard.
                                                                           Action brought on 30 May 2003 by Il Ponte Finanziaria
                                                                           S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(1) OJ L 175, p. 27.                                                                 Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                                   (Case T-194/03)
                                                                                                  (2003/C 184/106)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Giuseppe Piro against
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                          (Case T-193/03)                                  Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                           30 May 2003 by Il Ponte Finanziaria S.p.A., represented by
                         (2003/C 184/105)                                  P.L. Roncaglia, A.T. Malaspina and M. Boletto, lawyers.
                    (Language of the Case: French)                         The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
                                                                           was Marine Enterprise Projects Società Unipersonale di Alberto
                                                                           Fiorenzi S.r.l.
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 May 2003 by Giuseppe Piro,
resident in Wezembeek Oppem (Belgium), represented by                      —     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne                    Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                     Marks and Designs) of 17 March 2003 in Case R 1015/
                                                                                 2001-4
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     order the OHIM to dismiss the application for a Commu-
                                                                                 nity trade mark No 940007 BAINBRIDGE (figurative);
—     annul the decision establishing the definitive staff report
      for 1997 to 1999;                                                    —     order the OHIM to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/50              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           2.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 3 June 2003 by European Federation
                                                                          for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) against the European
Applicant for Community         Marine Enterprise Projects So-                 Parliament and the Council of the European Union
trade mark:                     cietà Unipersonale di Alberto
                                Fiorenzi S.r.l.
                                                                                                    (Case T-196/03)
Community       trade   mark    The figurative mark ‘BAIN-                                         (2003/C 184/107)
sought:                         BRIDGE’ — Application for re-
                                gistration No 940007 requested                                (Language of the case: English)
                                for products in Classes 18
                                (Leather and imitations of
                                leather, animal skins, hides;
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
                                trunks and travelling bags; um-
                                                                          the European Union was brought before the Court of First
                                brellas, parasols and walking
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities on 3 June 2003 by
                                sticks; whips, harness and sadd-
                                                                          European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EffCI), Brussels,
                                lery) and 25 (Clothing, foot-
                                                                          Belgium, represented by Mr K. Maldegem and Mr C. Mereu,
                                wear, headgear).
                                                                          lawyers.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Proprietor of mark or sign      The Applicant
cited in the opposition pro-
                                                                          —     Declare the application applicable and well founded, or, in
ceedings:
                                                                                the alternative, join the questions on admissibility to the
                                                                                examination of the substance
Mark or sign cited in op-       Italian      figurative      marks        —     Order the partial annulment of Article 1 of Directive
position:                       ‘BRIDGE’ (Reg. No 370836 and                    2003/15/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the
                                704338) for products in                         Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive
                                Class 25, the figurative mark                   76/768/EEC (2) on the approximation of the laws of the
                                ‘THE BRIDGE BASKET’ (Reg.                       Member States relating to cosmetic products, so as to
                                No 593651) for products in                      remove the new Article 4a (2) and (2.1) ; Article 4b and
                                Classes 18 and 25, trade name                   the new sub-paragraph added to Article 6(3) of the
                                ‘THE         BRIDGE’          (Reg.             Directive 76/768/EEC.
                                No 642952) for products in
                                Class 25, the three-dimensional           —     order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in the
                                marks ‘THE BRIDGE’ (Reg.                        proceedings
                                No 704372 and No 633349)
                                for products in Classes 18 and
                                25, the trade name ‘FOOT-
                                BRIDGE’ (Reg. No 710102) for              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                products in Classes 18 and 25,
                                the figurative mark ‘THE
                                BRIDGE WAYFARER’ (Reg.                    The applicant is a European Economic Interest Grouping
                                No 721569) for products in                representing European manufacturers of cosmetic ingredients.
                                Classes 18 and 25, the trade              The provisions of Directive 2003/15/EC which it attacks
                                                                          concern the prohibition of the performance of animal testing
                                name ‘OVER THE BRIDGE’
                                                                          on chemicals used as ingredients in cosmetic products as well
                                (Reg. No 630763) for products
                                in Classes 18 and 25, and the             as the prohibition of all uses in cosmetic products of certain
                                trade name ‘THE BRIDGE’ (Reg.             chemicals classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for
                                No 642953) for products in                reproduction.
                                Class 18.
                                                                          In support of its application to annul the provisions relating to
                                                                          the prohibition of animal testing, the applicant advances the
Decision of the Opposition      Dismissal of the opposition.              following grounds:
Division:
                                                                          —     The alleged infringement of essential procedural require-
                                                                                ments. The applicant claims that the contested measure is
                                                                                based on an incorrect legal basis. According to the
Decision of the Board of        Dismissal of the appeal.                        applicant, although it is based on Article 95 of the EC
Appeal:                                                                         treaty it is not intended to eliminate obstacles to the free
                                                                                movement of goods or remove distortions of competition.
                                                                                Further, the applicant advances an alleged misuse of
Pleas in law:                   Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)               powers, in that the contested measure is, according to
                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94                     the applicant, intended to promote the welfare of animals
                                (Risk of confusion).                            which is not part of the internal market objectives of the
                                                                                EC. Finally, the applicant claims that the contested
                                                                                measure does not contain adequate reasons and due
                                                                                motivation.