CELEX: C2002/233/50
Language: en
Date: 2002-09-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-212/02: Action brought on 10 July 2002 by Commune de Champagne and Others against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

28.9.2002             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/27
A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal             Grounds of claim:              —    Infringement of Article 43 of
was Juan Espadafor Caba, Granada, Spain.                                                                      Regulation 40/94 ( 1), since
                                                                                                              there was no satisfactory
                                                                                                              proof of the genuine use of
                                                                                                              the opposing trademark.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                         —    Infringement of Article 8 (1)
                                                                                                              b of Regulation 40/94 since
—     annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the                                                  there is no danger of con-
      defendant dated 8 April 2002 in case R 1046/2000-1;                                                     fusion with regard to certain
                                                                                                              goods.
—     order the Office to bear the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Com-        The applicant
munity trade mark:
The Community trade           The word mark ‘VITAFRUIT’ for
mark concerned:               certain goods in classes 5, 29 and
                                                                          Action brought on 10 July 2002 by Commune de Cham-
                              32 (a.o. beers, mineral and aerated         pagne and Others against Council of the European Union
                              waters and other non-alcoholic
                                                                                 and Commission of the European Communities
                              drinks, fruit and vegetable drinks,
                              fruit juices; syrups and other prep-
                              arations for making beverages;
                              herbal and vitamin beverages)                                         (Case T-212/02)
Proprietor of the right to    Juan Espadafor Caba                                                   (2002/C 233/50)
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:                                                                                 (Language of the case: French)
Trade mark or sign            The national mark ‘VITAFRUT’
asserted by way of oppo-      for goods in classes 30 and 32
sition in the opposition      (a.o. non-alcoholic and non-thera-
proceedings:                  peutic carbonic drinks, fruit and           An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                              vegetable juices without fermen-            Commission of the European Communities was brought
                              tation, lemonades, orangeades,              before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                              cold beverages, soda water)                 on 10 July 2002 by Commune de Champagne and Others,
                                                                          Canton de Vaud (Switzerland), represented by Denis Wael-
                                                                          broeck, lawyer.
Decision of the Oppo-         Upheld opposition insofar as it
sition Division:              was based on the goods ‘fruit and
                              vegetable juices without fermen-
                              tation, lemonades, orangeades’              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                              and insofar as it was directed
                              against the goods ‘mineral and
                              aerated waters and other non-               —     annul Article 1 of Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom
                              alcoholic drinks, fruit and veg-                  Decision of the Council and of the Commission as
                              etable drinks, fruit juices; syrups               regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological
                              and other preparations for mak-                   Cooperation, of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven
                              ing beverages; herbal and vitamin                 Agreements with the Swiss Confederation in so far as
                              beverages’.                                       the Council and the Commission thereby approved
                                                                                Article 5(8) of Title II of Annex 7 to the Agreement
                                                                                between the European Community and the Swiss Confed-
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal by the                    eration on Trade in Agricultural Products (‘the Cham-
Appeal:                       applicant.                                        pagne Clause’);
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/28              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.9.2002
—     in so far as necessary, annul that decision inasmuch as          name ‘Champagne’ has been used in the production of wine in
      the Council and the Commission approved the other                the area for many years and is thus the industrial and
      articles of the Agreement between the European Com-              commercial property of the applicants.
      munity and the Swiss Confederation on Trade in Agricul-
      tural Products, as well as the Agreement on Mutual
      Recognition in Relation to Conformity Assessment                 Furthermore, a total ban on the use by the applicants of
      between the European Community and the Swiss Confed-             the name ‘Champagne’ does not observe the principle of
      eration, the Agreement between the European Com-                 proportionality. The applicants point out that the wine they
      munity and the Swiss Confederation on Certain Aspects            produce is a non-sparkling wine which does not compete
      of Government Procurement, the Agreement on Scientific           with French champagne. There is therefore no likelihood of
      and Technological Cooperation between the European               confusion. In addition, there are less restrictive ways in which
      Community and the European Atomic Energy Com-                    to achieve the same objective, such as by indicating the country
      munity, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of         of origin on the label.
      the other part, the Agreement between the European
      Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Carriage
      of Goods and Passengers by Rail and Road, the Agreement
      between the European Community and the Swiss Confed-
      eration on Air Transport, the Agreement on the Free
      Movement of Persons between the European Community
      and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss
      Confederation, of the other part;
                                                                       Action brought on 12 July 2002 by SNF S.A. against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
—     declare that the European Community, as represented by
      the Council and the European Commission, is liable and
      order the defendants to compensate in full the applicant                                 (Case T-213/02)
      wine growers for all damage arising from the ‘Champagne
      Clause’;
                                                                                               (2002/C 233/51)
—     order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.                             (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       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 12 July 2002 by SNF S.A.,
                                                                       represented by Koen Van Maldegem and Claudio Mereu at
                                                                       McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP in Brussels, Belgium
The applicants are, on the one hand, owners of vineyards in
the municipality of Champagne, in the canton of Vaud in                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Switzerland and, on the other, acting in defence of the interests
of those wine growers.                                                 —     order the partial annulment of the Twenty-Sixth Com-
                                                                             mission Directive 2002/34/EC of 15 April 2002 adapting
                                                                             to technical progress Annexes II, III and VII to Council
                                                                             Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws
                                                                             of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1), so
By the contested decision, the Council and the Commission
                                                                             as to remove polyacrylamides from the measure;
approved seven bilateral agreements between the Community
and the Swiss Confederation; one of those agreements concerns
agricultural trade. One of the annexes to that agreement               —     order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in
includes a provision prohibiting use of the name ‘Champagne’                 these proceedings.
for wine originating in the canton of Vaud.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of their arguments, the applicants allege, first,
breach of general principles of law including right to their
identity, to property and to the freedom to pursue professional        The applicant seeks the partial annulment of the above-
activities. The word ‘Champagne’ is also protected in Swiss            mentioned Directive due to the fact that the Commission has
law, where it is an appellation communale d’origine contrôlée          placed restrictions on the use of the applicant’s products,
(registered municipal designation of origin). Moreover, the            polyacrylamides, as ingredients in cosmetic products. The