CELEX: C2004/035/14
Language: en
Date: 2004-02-07 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2003 in Case T-235/02: Strongline A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Failure to produce evidence in the language of the opposition procedure — Rule 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Action manifestly inadmissible)

7.2.2004                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 35/9
2.    Orders the Parliament to pay the applicant the installation          1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
      allowance provided for by Article 5 of Annex VII of the Staff
      Regulations, amounting to two months’ basic salary, together         2.    The applicant shall pay the costs.
      with default interest from 24 January 2002. The interest rate
      to be applied shall be two points higher than the rate fixed by
      the European Central Bank for principal refinancing operations
                                                                           (1) OJ C 169, 13.7.2002.
      applicable during the period concerned.
3.    Orders the Parliament to bear all the costs.
(1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                                 of 17 November 2003
                                                                           in Case T-235/02: Strongline A/S v Office for Harmonis-
                                                                           ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                                        (OHIM) (1)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Failure
                                                                           to produce evidence in the language of the opposition
                       of 5 November 2003                                  procedure — Rule 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 —
                                                                                           Action manifestly inadmissible)
in Case T-130/02: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                                                    (2004/C 35/14)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: English)
(State aid — Multisectorial framework on regional aid for
large investment projects — Application for correction of a
decision declaring aid to be compatible with the common
market — Commission response — Not in the nature of a
   decision — Application for annulment — Inadmissible)                    In Case T-235/02: Strongline A/S, established in Glostrup
                                                                           (Denmark), represented by J.S. Ørndrup, lawyer, against Office
                                                                           for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                           (2004/C 35/13)                                  Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: O. Waelbroek), the intervener before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance being Scala Inc., established in
                                                                           Exton, Pennsylvania (United States of America), represented by
                                                                           R.M. Hiddleston, solicitor — action brought against the
                   (Language of the case: German)                          decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           Designs) of 27 May 2002 (Case R 830/2001-1) on the refusal
                                                                           of an opposition for failure to substantiate rights based on
                                                                           earlier trade marks — the Court of First Instance (Second
In Case T-130/02: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG, whose registered                 Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and
office is in Heiligengrabe, Germany, originally represented by             N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
B. Luther and subsequently by R. Nierer, lawyers, against the              17 November 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Di
Bucci and T. Scharf) — application for annulment of the
alleged decision of the Commission of 5 February 2002 not to               1.    The action is dismissed.
correct its decision of 3 July 2001 relating to the authorisation
of State aid in the sum of DEM 69,3 million to the applicant               2.    The applicant shall pay the costs.
for an investment in Heiligengrabe, Germany — the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed, at the time of its deliberation, of V. Tiili, President,         (1) OJ C 233 of 28.9.02.
and J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 5 November
2003, the operative part of which is as follows: