CELEX: C1999/174/28
Language: en
Date: 1999-06-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-98/99: Action brought on 20 April 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA against the Commission of the European Communities

C 174/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19.6.1999
The provisions of the Zonenrandförderungsgesetz constituted              — take any further action as the Court may deem appropriate.
general measures of tax law of the Federal Republic of
Germany, which, according to the case-law of the Court of                    Trade mark        con- ‘OPTIONS’           —    Application
Justice, are to be assessed solely on the basis of Article 67 of             cerned:                  No 128611
the ECSC Treaty, not of Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty or the               Product or service:      insurance, warranty, financing,
steel aid code.                                                                                       hire-purchase and lease-purchase
The tax provisions of the Zonenrandförderungsgesetz were                     Decision contested refusal of registration by the exam-
always duly notified to the Commission in accordance with                    before the Board of iner
Article 93 of the EEC Treaty and were approved by the                        Appeal:
Commission throughout the period when that law was in                        Pleas in law relied on: — Article 7(2) does not itself pro-
force. Nor were any objections raised under Article 67(2) of                                              vide grounds for refusal but
the ECSC Treaty.                                                                                          merely directs Article 7(1) (b)
                                                                                                          and (c);
Moreover, the contested decision is based on the provisions of
the steel aid code in force from 1986, which the Commission                                           — distinctiveness         acquired
ought not to have adopted by the procedure under the first                                                through use in a part of the
and second paragraphs of Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty. The                                               Community should enable the
provisions of that code which extended the definition of aid to                                           provisions of Article 7(3) to
include non-specific aid by the Member States should not have                                             apply.
been applied in the present case.
In the alternative, the applicant submits that the contested
decision is founded on a legal basis which is not applicable:
according to Article 9 of the ‘Sixth Steel Aid Code’, it entered
into force only on 1 January 1997, that is, on a date when the
Zonenrandförderungsgesetz had already ceased to exist.
                                                                         Action brought on 20 April 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
(1) Commission Decision No 2496/96/ECSC of 18 December 1996
    establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel industry
    (OJ L 338 of 28.12.1996, p. 42).                                                              (Case T-98/99)
(2) Law of 5 August 1971, Bundesgesetzblatt i, p. 1237.
                                                                                                 (1999/C 174/28)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Ford Motor Company                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                     European Communities on 20 April 1999 by UPS Europe
                        Market (OHIM)                                    NV/SA, represented by Mr. Tom R. Otervanger, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loeff
                         (Case T-91/99)                                  Claeys Verbeke, 5 rue Charles Martel.
                        (1999/C 174/27)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — declare, in accordance with Article 175 of the EC Treaty,
                   (Language of the case: English)                           that the Commission has failed to act by not having
                                                                             rendered a definitive decision within a reasonable period
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal               of time upon the Applicant’s complaint lodged with the
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance                 Commission on 8 June 1998;
of the European Communities on 15 April 1999 by the Ford
Motor Company, having its registered office in Delaware, USA,            — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
represented by Anthony James Tweedale Willoughby, with an                    applicant in the present proceedings;
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia
Manhaeve, 56-58 rue Charles Martel.                                      — take such further action as the Court may deem appro-
                                                                             priate.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                Pleas in law and main arguments
     Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to refuse
     under Article (1)(b) and (c) of the Community Trade Mark            On 8 June 1998, the applicant submitted a formal complaint
     Regulation to register the word ‘OPTIONS’ as a trade mark;          against the German Republic for granting unlawful State aid
                                                                         contrary to Article 92 of the EC Treaty in connection with the
— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market              proposed acquisition by Deutsche Post AG of 22.5 % of the
     to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present           shares of DHL. The applicant assumed that the financing of
     proceedings;                                                        the transaction infringed the said Article of the EC Treaty. The
 ---pagebreak--- 19.6.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 174/15
applicant states that Deutsche Post AG has spent several                        Removal from the register of Case T-210/96 (1)
billion DEM to acquire subsequently joint control of DHL
International and control of some of the major freight carriers                                  (1999/C 174/30)
and/or parcel providers. According to the applicant, there is
no evidence that no State aid is involved. Such issues can and
must be examined by the Commission.                                                         (Language of the case: French)
The applicant emphasises that the Commission’s intervention              By order of 10 February 1999 the President of the First
in this case is crucial for maintaining competition in the               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
markets concerned. Currently, the postal and parcel market is            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
characterised by an impressive wave of take-overs by the                 Case T-210/96: Margarida Marı́z Mendes Pires Afonso v
(former) national post offices and particularly Deutsche Post            Commission of the European Communities.
AG. Private operators are not able to meet this form of
competition and will, if no appropriate action is taken by the           (1) OJ No C 54 of 22.2.1997.
Commission, be eliminated from the market.
On 21 December 1998, the applicant sent a letter inviting the
Commission to take a decision with regard to its complaint.
The applicant announced that it would initiate proceedings
under Article 175 of the EC Treaty if the Commission did not
inform the applicant within two months from the date of that                    Removal from the register of Case T-291/97 (1)
letter. The period of two months thus expired on 21 February
1999 without the Commission having taken a decision or                                           (1999/C 174/31)
defined its position in regard to the applicant’s complaint
under Article 92 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
The applicant submits that the period of more than 10 months
which has elapsed since the complaint was submitted is a                 By order of 12 March 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber
sufficiently long period to enable the Commission to close the           of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
preliminary stage of investigation and to initiate a formal              has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-291/97:
investigation under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty.                      Robert Mehlen and Others v Council of the European Union
                                                                         and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 7 of 10.1.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-194/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 174/29)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-610/97 (1)
                                                                                                 (1999/C 174/32)
                   (Language of the case: French)
By order of 23 March 1999 the President of the First Chamber                               (Language of the case: Danish)
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-194/96:              By order of 8 February 1999 the President of the Fourth
Mireille Meskens v European Parliament.                                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-610/97: Ingeborg Fangel v Council of the European
(1) OJ No C 9 of 11.1.1997.                                              Union and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 55 of 20.2.1998.