CELEX: C2001/317/56
Language: en
Date: 2001-11-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-183/01: Action brought on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

C 317/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.11.2001
In this case the applicant is bringing an action for failure to act       Pleas in law and main arguments
and annulment.
                                                                          The applicant in the present case objects to her non-inclusion
In support of its claims, the applicant asserts:                          on the list of successful candidates drawn up in the context of
                                                                          the Notice of a selection process for temporary members of
—     infringement of Articles 4(b), 86 and 88 of the ECSC                staff COM/R/A/01/1999 for the management of Research and
      Treaty. It is alleged in this respect that the imposition on        Technological Development programmes.
      ECSC undertakings of charges which, in the case of
      Charbonnages de France, will be directly or indirectly
      financed, whereas the applicant, a private company, will
      have to meet them in the absence of any commercial                  In support of her claims the applicant alleges:
      production, constitutes discrimination contrary to the
      ECSC Treaty;                                                        —     The infringement of the duty to state reasons and the
                                                                                principle of openness;
—     infringement of essential procedural requirements by
      failure to state reasons;                                           —     The infringement of the Selection Process Notice and the
                                                                                rules governing the composition of a selection board;
—     lack of competence, since it does not appear from the
      letter of 10 July 2001 that the decision which it contains
      was formally taken by the Commission and that its                   —     The infringement of the principles of sound adminis-
      signatory was authorised to sign it;                                      tration and equal treatment, in that the identity and the
                                                                                professional and administrative situation of the members
                                                                                of the Selection Committee were disclosed only to certain
—     breach of the principle of sound administration.                          candidates.
(1) Sacilor Lorminesv Commission (not yet published in the Official
    Journal).
                                                                          Action brought on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation
                                                                          against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                                                        Market
Action brought on 3 August 2001 by Sophie Bachotet
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-183/01)
                          (Case T-182/01)
                                                                                                   (2001/C 317/56)
                          (2001/C 317/55)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 August 2001 by Sophie Bachotet,                 European Communities on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation,
resident in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and                  represented by Michael Edenborough, Hogarth Chambers,
Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in                  London (UK).
Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decisions of the Board of Appeal and the
—     annul the decision of the Selection Committee COM/                        Opposition Division in so far as they concern the
      R/A/01/1999 to award the applicant a mark that was not                    application for registration of the applicant’s mark for the
      sufficient to allow her to be included on the reserve list;               goods in Class 5; and as a consequence, order that the
                                                                                Office should allow the applicant’s mark to proceed to
—     order the defendent to pay the costs.                                     registration for the goods in Class 5;
 ---pagebreak--- 10.11.2001            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 317/29
—     in the alternative, annul the decisions of the Board of             Action brought on 4 August 2001 by Dominique Ramae-
      Appeal and the Opposition Division in so far as they                kers against the Commission of the European Communi-
      concern the application for registration of the applicant’s                                         ties
      mark for the goods in Class 5; and order that the
      application in respect of the amended specification for
      the goods in Class 5 be referred back to the Opposition                                       (Case T-185/01)
      Division for further consideration;
                                                                                                   (2001/C 317/57)
—     order that the applicant’s costs of defending the original
      opposition and of prosecuting the appeal before the
      Board of Appeal and of prosecuting this appeal before                                   (Language of the case: French)
      the Court of First Instance be paid to the applicant.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           European Communities on 4 August 2001 by Dominique
                                                                          Ramaekers, resident in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium), represent-
                                                                          ed by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an
Applicant for the Com-         Alza Corporation, Mountain                 address for service in Luxembourg.
munity trade mark:             View, California, U.S.A.
The Community trade            The word mark ‘E-TRANS’ for
mark concerned:                certain goods in Classes 5, 10             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                               and 42 (e.g. pharmaceutical and
                               veterinary preparations and sub-
                               stances)         —        application      —     annul the decision of the selection board for the Research
                               No. 120089                                       selection COM/R/A/01/1999 to award her a mark that
                                                                                was not sufficient to allow her to be included on the
Proprietor of the right to     Hexal AG, Holzkirchen, Germany                   reserve list;
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition                                                  —     in so far as necessary, annul the subsequent decision of
proceedings:                                                                    the Selection Committee and of the AECE establishing
                                                                                the reserve list for the Research selection process
Trade mark or sign             The      German        trade    mark             COM/R/A/01/1999;
asserted by way of oppo-       ‘ESTRANS’ for certain goods in
sition in the opposition       Class 5
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
proceedings:
Decision of the Oppo-          Partial accept of the opposition,
sition Division:               insofar as it relates to pharmaceut-
                               ical and veterinary preparations
                               and substances (Class 5)                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:                                                                   The applicant in the present case objects to her non-inclusion
                                                                          on the reserve list of successful candidates in the context of
Grounds of claim:              —     The goods covered by the             the Notice of a selection process for temporary members of
                                     two marks are different;             staff COM/R/A/01/1999 for the management of Research and
                                                                          Technological Development programmes.
                               —     there is no likelihood of con-
                                     fusion; and
                               —     Article 8(1)(b) of Regu-
                                                                          The pleas and main arguments are those put forward in Case
                                     lation 40/94 (1) is not appli-
                                                                          T-182/01 Bachotet v Commission (1).
                                     cable.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the           (1) Not yet published in the OJEC.
    Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).