CELEX: C2000/192/48
Language: en
Date: 2000-07-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-129/00: Action brought on 12 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

8.7.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 192/25
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:            Pleas in law and main arguments
— Annul Commission Decision 2000/128/EC of 11 May                        Trademark concerned:          Three dimensional trademark in
     1999 of 11 May 1999 concerning aid granted by Italy to                                            the form of tablets — Application
     promote employment published in Official Journal of the                                           No 949610
     European Communities L 42 of 15 February 2000;
                                                                         Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice
— In the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 2 of the operative                                          Agreement (in particular, washing
     part of the Decision, to the extent to which they do not                                          and bleaching preparations for
     exclude from the declaration of incompatibility with                                              laundry use; cleaning prep-
     the common market other types of financial aid for                                                arations, preparations for the
     employment which are shown in the present proceedings                                             washing of dishes, soaps, per-
     to be compatible with the common market; consequently,                                            fumery, essential oils, cosmetics,
     annul in respect of the same types of financial aid for                                           hair lotions, dentifrices)
     employment Article 3 of the operative part of the Decision
     in so far as it improperly requires recovery of the aid             Contested        decision     Refusal of registration by the
     already paid;                                                       before the Board of           examiner
                                                                         Appeal:
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Grounds for appeal:           Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                                                                                                       Regulation 40/94.
Contentions and main arguments adduced in support
The contentions and principal arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case T-124/00 FAID Federdistribuzione and
Others v Commission.
                                                                         Action brought on 12 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble
                                                                         Company against the Office for Harmonization in the
                                                                                                 Internal Market
                                                                                                 (Case T-129/00)
Action brought on 12 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble                                            (2000/C 192/48)
Company against the Office for Harmonization in the
                         Internal Market
                                                                                           (Language of the case: English)
                         (Case T-128/00)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                         (2000/C 192/47)                                 Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 12 May 2000 by The Procter &
                                                                         Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and
                                                                         G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,
                   (Language of the case: English)                       Netherlands.
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 May 2000 by The Procter &                     — annul Decision R508/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal
Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and                       of the OHIM of 8 March 2000, in so far as it finds that the
G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,                      Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in
Netherlands.                                                                 Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              — order the OHIM to pay the costs.
— annul Decision R506/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal
     of the OHIM of 8 March 2000, in so far as it finds that the         Pleas in law and main arguments
     Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in
     Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and                         Trademark condensed:          Three dimensional trademark in
                                                                                                       the form of tablets — Application
— order the OHIM to pay the costs.                                                                     No 949990
 ---pagebreak--- C 192/26              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          8.7.2000
Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice           Pleas in law and main arguments
                              Agreement (in particular, washing
                              and bleaching preparations for            — Adipex Retard capsules are placed on the market solely on
                              laundry use; cleaning prep-                    the basis of a national Austrian authorisation, for the
                              arations, preparations for the                 grant of which the mutual recognition procedure under
                              washing of dishes, soaps, per-                 Chapter III of Directive 75/319 (1) was not applied. The
                              fumery, essential oils, cosmetics,             defendant was therefore not competent to adopt the
                              hair lotions, dentifrices)                     contested decision.
Contested        decision    Refusal of registration by the             — The Commission wrongly based its decision on Article 15a
before the Board of           examiner                                       of Directive 75/319 and the criteria in Article 5 of Directive
Appeal:                                                                      65/65 (2). In fact only Article 11 of Directive 65/65/EEC is
                                                                             material, however.
Grounds for appeal:          Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              Regulation 40/94.                         — The conditions for withdrawal of authorisation are not
                                                                             satisfied. It has not been sufficiently established either that
                                                                             phentermin is harmful or that it lacks therapeutic effect if
                                                                             correctly used.
                                                                        (1) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the
                                                                            approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
                                                                            administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products
                                                                            (OJ 1975 L 147, p. 13).
                                                                        (2) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-
Action brought on 17 May 2000 by Gerot Pharmazeutika                        mation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrat-
GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-                            ive action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ, English
                           munities                                         Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20).
                        (Case T-132/00)
                       (2000/C 192/49)
                 (Language of the case: German)                         Action brought on 22 May 2000 by Cambridge Healthcare
                                                                        Supplies Limited against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                    Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 May 2000 by Gerot Pharmazeu-                                            (Case T-137/00)
tika GmbH, of Vienna, represented by Dr Karl Grigkar,
Rechtsanwalt, Vienna.                                                                              (2000/C 192/50)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                             (Language of the case: English)
— annul Commission Decision K (2000) 452 of 9 March
    2000 on withdrawal of authorisation of medicinal prod-              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
    ucts for human use which contain the substance phen-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    termin, in particular with respect to the medicinal product         European Communities on 22 May 2000 by Cambridge
    Adipex Retard capsules authorised for the applicant; in             Healthcare Supplies Limited, represented by David Vaughan,
    eventu                                                              Q.C., Kelyn Bacon, Barrister, and Simon Davis, Solicitor,
                                                                        Clifford Chance, London.
— annul the Commission’s decision in so far as Article 1 in
    conjunction with Annex I thereof requires the Member                The applicant claims that the Court should:
    State Austria to withdraw the authorisation for the appli-
    cant’s medicinal product containing phentermin, namely              — annul Commission Decision C(2000)452, of 9 March
    Adipex Retard capsules;                                                  2000;
— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.                    — order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.