CELEX: C2001/369/22
Language: en
Date: 2001-12-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-237/01: Action brought on 18 September 2001 by Alcon Universal Ltd against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

22.12.2001            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 369/13
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                           INSTANCE
                       of 9 August 2001                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                          in Case T-216/01 (ReiseBank AG v Commission, not yet
                                                                          published).
in Case T-120/01 R: Carlo De Nicola v European Invest-
                           ment Bank
(Procedure for interim relief — Suspension from duties —
           Fumus boni juris — Urgency — None)
                        (2001/C 369/20)
                                                                          Action brought on 18 September 2001 by Alcon Univer-
                                                                          sal Ltd against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                                                      Market
                                                                                                  (Case T-237/01)
In Case T-120/01 R: Carlo De Nicola, residing in Rome,
represented by L. Isola, avocat, against European Investment
Bank (Agents: C. Gómez de la Cruz and C. Camilli) —                                              (2001/C 369/22)
application for suspension of the operation of a number of
measures adopted by the EIB concerning the applicant — the                                  (Language of the case: English)
President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on
9 August 2001, in which he:
1.   Dismissed the application for interim relief;                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
2.   Ordered that the costs be reserved.                                  European Communities on 18 September 2001 by Alcon
                                                                          Universal Ltd, represented by Hamish Porter of Theodore
                                                                          Goddard, London (United Kingdom).
                                                                          A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
                                                                          was Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH.
Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Commerz-
bank AG against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             munities
                                                                          —     .annul the decision of 18 July 2001 of the Board of
                        (Case T-219/01)                                         Appeal in case R0273/2000-1 and require the Office to
                                                                                refuse the cancellation of the Community trade mark.
                        (2001/C 369/21)
                                                                          —     order the Office to pay the costs.
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 September 2001 by Commerz-
bank AG, Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by
H. Satzky and B. Maassen, Rechtsanwälte.                                  Proprietor of the Com-        Alcon Universal Ltd.
                                                                          munity trade mark:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The Community trade           word mark ‘BSS’ for certain goods
                                                                          mark concerned:               in class 5 (registration no 90134)
—    annul the Commission Decision of 17 August 2001 in
     Case COMP/E-1/37.919 addressed to the applicant relat-               Applicant for the declar-     Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH.
     ing to the refusal of a supplementary request to see                 ation for invalidity:
     documents;
                                                                          Decision of the Cancel-       Invalidity of the Community trade
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                               lation Division:              mark
 ---pagebreak--- C 369/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22.12.2001
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the Appeal intro-             —     It submits that the Commission has assessed the gravity
Appeal:                        duced by Alcon Universal Ltd.                    of the infringement, as it is required to do so under
                                                                                Article 12(2) of Council Regulation No 3975/87 (1),
Grounds of claim:              Failure by the Board of Appeal to                incorrectly and that the categorisation of the infringement
                               recognise the actions undertaken                 under the Commission Guidelines on Fines (2) as ‘very
                               by Alcon Universal Ltd. to restrain              serious’ rather than ‘serious’ is therefore incorrect.
                               the use of the trade mark by other               Although the nature of the infringement as ‘market
                               parties.                                         sharing’ is not disputed the Commission’s assessment of
                                                                                the actual impact and the geographic scope of that impact
                                                                                are contested. The Commission’s calculation and use of
                                                                                the term ‘affected turnover’ is also disputed.
                                                                          —     It argues that the Commission has not proved that the
                                                                                infringement covered the period from 5 September 1989
                                                                                until 15 February 2001.
Action brought on 2 October 2001 by Scandinavia
Airlines System AB against the Commission of the Euro-
                        pean Communities                                  —     In relation to co-operation and leniency, it maintains that
                                                                                a number of factors that should have been taken into
                                                                                consideration by the Commission have either not been
                         (Case T-241/01)                                        considered in the Decision or, if they have been con-
                                                                                sidered, the Commission’s assessment is incorrect.
                         (2001/C 369/23)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 of 14 December 1987
                                                                              laying downthe procedure for the application of the rules on
                                                                              competition to undertaking in the air transport sector (OJ L 374,
                                                                              p. 1).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          (2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC
European Communities on 2 October 2001 by Scandinavian                        Treaty (OJ C9 1998, p. 3).
Airlines System AB, represented by Mr Morten Kofmann of
Kromann Reumert, Copenhagen (Denmark).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      judicially review the calculation of the fine imposed on
       the applicant by the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Action brought on 15 October 2001 by Pierre Eveillard
                                                                               against Commission of the European Communities
The subject of the application is the Commission Decision
C(2001) 1987 final of 18 July 2001, relating to proceedings
pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty ant Article 53 of the                                      (Case T-258/01)
Agreement on the European Economic Area (case COMP.D.2.
37.444 — SAS/Maersk Air and case COMP.D.2 37.386 —
Sun-Air vs. SAS and Maersk Air). In this Decision the                                              (2001/C 369/24)
Commission states that the applicant and Maesk Air A/S have
infringed the competition rules by agreeing to share markets
between them by Maersk Air withdrawing from the Copenha-                                      (Language of the case: French)
gen-Stockholm route and the applicant withdrawing from
the Copenhangen-Venice and Billund-Frankfurt routes, thus
leaving operation exclusively to the other party.
The applicant does not object to the Commission’s finding                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
that it has infringed the competition rules. It merely exercises          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
its right to subject the Commission’s calculation of the fine to          European Communities on 15 October 2001 by Pierre Eveil-
judicial review.                                                          lard, residing in Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer.