CELEX: C2001/303/30
Language: en
Date: 2001-10-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-162/01: Action brought on 18 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B., S.L. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

27.10.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 303/17
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)                  2.    The request submitted by Poste Italiane SpA and by the
(OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49) to the extent that that decision excludes                 Commission for confidential treatment is granted with regard
from that financing expenditure declared by the Irish accredited                 to the interlocutory proceedings.
paying agency in respect of afforestation aid — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President,           3.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
an order on 25 April 2001, the operative part of which is as               4.    Costs are reserved.
follows:
1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and shall pay those of
      the Commission.                                                      Action brought on 18 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B.,
                                                                           S.L. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal
                                                                                      Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
3.    Ireland shall bear its own costs.
                                                                                                      (Case T-162/01)
( 1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.00.
                                                                                                     (2001/C 303/30)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                           Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               18 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B., S.L., whose registered
                              INSTANCE                                     office is in Bigues i Riells (Spain), represented by Arturo Canela
                                                                           Giménez.
                           of 28 May 2001
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
in Case T-53/01 R: Poste Italiane SpA v Commission of                      —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
                   the European Communities                                      Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market
                                                                                 (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) of 30 April 2001 in
(Applications for interim relief — Article 86 EC in conjunc-                     Case R 122/2000-1 Giorgio Beverly Hills v Giorgi and
tion with Article 82 EC — Article 86(2) EC — Postal                              Others, on the ground that the disputed Community trade
         services — Urgency — Balancing of interests)                            mark number 417709 Giorgio Beverly Hills may not be
                                                                                 registered pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                 No 40/94;
                          (2001/C 303/29)
                                                                           —     declare Community trade mark number 417709 Giorgio
                                                                                 Beverly Hills invalid or, if appropriate, refuse it regis-
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                 tration;
In Case T-53/01 R: Poste Italiane SpA, established in Rome,                —     order the Office to pay the costs.
represented by Gian Michele Roberti, Petrus Mathijsen, Ales-
sandra Perrazzelli, Elisabetta Rubini and Andrea Sandulli,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                Pleas in law and main arguments
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
L. Pignataro and K. Wiedner) — application for suspension of
operation of Commission Decision 2001/176/EC of
21 December 2000 concerning proceedings pursuant to                        Proprietor of the Com-           Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc.
Article 86 of the EC Treaty in relation to the provision of                munity trade mark:
certain new postal services with a guaranteed day- or time-
certain delivery in Italy (OJ 2001 L 63, p. 59) — the President            The Community trade              Word mark ‘GIORGIO BEVERLY
of the Court of First Instance made an order on 28 May 2001,               mark concerned:                  HILLS’ — Application No 417709
the operative part of which is as follows:                                                                  for goods in Class 3
                                                                           Proprietor of the right to       Applicant
1.    Recapitalia Consorzio Italiano delle Agenzie di Recapito             the trade mark or sign
      Licenziatarie del Ministero delle Comunicazioni and TNT Post         asserted by way of oppo-
      Groep NV are granted leave to intervene in Case T-53/01 R in         sition in the opposition
      support of the form of order sought by the Commission.               proceedings:
 ---pagebreak--- C 303/18               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.10.2001
Trade mark or sign             Spanish trade marks ‘J. GIORGI’,                the performance of the INFORMS contract; consequently,
asserted by way of oppo-       ‘MISS GIORGI’, ‘GIORGI LINE’,                   order it to pay to IDATE the sum of Euros 503 662 by
sition in the opposition       registered for goods in Class 3                 way of damages;
proceedings:
Decision of the Oppo-          Dismissal of the opposition and           —     in any event, order the Commission to pay the whole of
sition Division:               party bringing opposition pro-                  the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of the
                               ceedings ordered to pay costs                   present action.
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the appeal and appel-
Appeal:                        lant ordered to pay costs
Grounds of claim:              Contrary to what is stated in the         Pleas in law and main arguments
                               contested decision, there is likeli-
                               hood of confusion between the
                               Community trade mark and the
                               trade marks of which the appli-           The applicants states that in the context of the Community
                               cant is the proprietor, since the         Trans-European Telecommunications Networks Programme it
                               differences between them to not           concluded a contract (Contract No 45504) concerning the
                               allow the consumer to differen-           INFORMS project (‘Dissemination of EuroISDN Benefits for
                               tiate between them.                       SMEs’) under which it agreed to organise, throughout the
                                                                         Member countries of the European Union, seminars aimed at
                                                                         informing and advising small and medium sized undertakings
                                                                         on the possible advantages of using the EuroISDN. In view of
                                                                         the size of the project, the contract called for the participation
                                                                         of subcontractors (‘partners’). Under the above contract, the
                                                                         Commission agreed to contribute, at the level of 50,85 %, to
                                                                         the financing of the total allowable costs borne under the
                                                                         contract, which include subcontracting costs.
Action brought on 25 July 2001 by the Institut de
l’Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         Initially the Commission paid its contribution in respect of all
                                                                         the costs invoiced to the applicant by its subcontractors under
                         (Case T-171/01)                                 the above contract, but after an audit of the contract it claimed
                                                                         from the applicant a certain amount of the sum paid on the
                                                                         ground that a part of the subcontracting costs was not covered
                         (2001/C 303/31)                                 by the concept of allowable costs in as much as it had not
                                                                         actually been paid by the applicant to the subcontractors but
                   (Language of the case: French)                        is the subject matter of a set-off.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicant disputes that interpretation and submits that, as
European Communities on 25 July 2001 by the Institut de                  regards the subcontracting costs borne under the INFORMS
l’Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe, estab-                contract, it was merely an intermediatory between the Com-
lished in Montpellier (France), represented by Mr Hugues                 mission and the other partners, since it merely paid back
Calvet, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.               directly to the ‘partners’, at a rate of 50,85 % of the costs borne
                                                                         by them, the sums paid by the Commission by way of
                                                                         Community finance of the subcontracting in the INFORMS
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              project, which explains why all the subcontracting costs were
                                                                         invoiced to it and why it set off the amount corresponding to
                                                                         the financing which each individual ‘partner’ had to raise
—     declare and hold that ‘allowable costs’ within the meaning
                                                                         (the remaining 49,15 %). The applicant submits that the
      of Article 1.2 of Annex II to contract No 45504
                                                                         Community contribution must be calculated on the total cost
      concluded between the Commission and IDATE on
                                                                         actually borne under the INFORMS contract, which means, as
      28 March 1996 covers the whole of the costs invoiced to
                                                                         regards subcontracting, the total cost borne by the ‘partners’.
      IDATE by the ‘partners’ under that contract and, therefore,
                                                                         That amount corresponds to the total costs invoiced to the
      that the Commission is not entitled to claim from IDATE
                                                                         applicant, since, in that area, it merely centralised the accounts
      reimbursement of the sum of Euros 503 662 under the
                                                                         and played the role of intermediatory with regard to the
      above contract or, more generally, any sum at all;
                                                                         Commissions contribution.
—     in the alternative, declare and hold that the Commission
      infringed its duty of good faith and its duty to inform
      IDATE and thereby committed breaches of contract in