CELEX: C2001/227/50
Language: en
Date: 2001-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-110/01: Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

C 227/26              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.8.2001
In support of its claim, the applicant pleads infringement of           Trade marks objected to       Verbal mark ‘Saint-Hubert 41’ —
Article 87(1) and (3)(c) of the EC Treaty. According to the             in the opposition pro-        Decision of 9 March 2001 in
applicant, the Commission, in its assessment of the aid                 cedure:                       procedure R-127/2000-1
awarded, did not take account of the specific, more expensive
production methods of the applicant required by the Nether-             Proprietor of the marks       the applicant
lands authorities whereby the smell is reduced. According to            objected to:
the applicant, this method of production is not obligatory in
the other Member States, as a result of which production is             Decision of the Oppo-         rejection of the applicant’s oppo-
cheaper. Furthermore, the applicant pleads infringement of              sition Division:              sition to the application for regis-
the Commission Decision of 6 July 1989 approving the                                                  tration of the mark ‘Hubert’
Bijdrageregeling Proefprojecten Mestverwerking and of
Article 88 of the EC Treaty. Finally, the applicant alleges             Decision of the Board of      rejection of the appeal lodged by
infringement of the duty to state reasons, the principle of             Appeal:                       the applicant
legitimate expectations and the right to a fair hearing.
                                                                        Grounds of claim:             violation of the notion of ‘likeli-
                                                                                                      hood of confusion’ referred to in
                                                                                                      Article 8(1)(b) of the Community
                                                                                                      Trade Mark Regulation (1)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A. against
   the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                        (Case T-110/01)
                        (2001/C 227/50)
                                                                        Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelmetalle
                                                                        GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
                  (Language of the case: French)                                                    munities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                   (Case T-111/01)
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A.,
established at Ludres (France), represented by Thierry van Innis                                 (2001/C 227/51)
and Geert Glas, avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
                                                                                          (Language of the Case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision adopted on 9 March 2001 in pro-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      cedure R-127/2000-1;                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelme-
—     order the Office to pay all the costs.                            talle GmbH, of Halsbrücke (Germany), represented by Dr Peter
                                                                        von Woedtke, lawyer.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities of 28 March 2001 (Decision C(2001)
Applicant for the Com-        France Distribution                             1028) on the State aid granted by Germany in favour of
munity trade mark:                                                            EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH & Co. Management KG (now
                                                                              Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH, together with Zeitzer
The Community trade           the semi-figurative mark ‘Hubert’               Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte GmbH, LandTechnik Schlüter
mark concerned:               — application No 108530                         GmbH, ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik GmbH, SKL Motoren-
                                                                              und Systembautechnik GmbH, SKL Spezialapparatebau
Goods or service con-         various food products including                 GmbH, Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH, Saxonia Edel-
cerned:                       milk, other dairy products, vin-                metalle GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH) —
                              egar and sauces, together with                  State aid No C41/99 (EXN 49/95) Germany.
                              hotel and catering services
                              (Classes 29, 30 and 42)                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.