CELEX: C2000/163/62
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-88/00: Action brought on 13 April 2000 by Mag Instrument, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

10.6.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 163/31
The pleas in law and arguments adduced are essentially the              Action brought on 13 April 2000 by Mag Instrument, Inc.
same as in Case T-76/00.                                                against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                      Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                                 (Case T-88/00)
                                                                                                (2000/C 163/62)
Action brought on 11 April 2000 by the Bank für Arbeit
und Wirtschaft Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                     (Language of the case: German)
                            Designs)
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                         (Case T-87/00)                                 Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                        (2000/C 163/61)                                 13 April 2000 by Mag Instrument, Inc., of Ontario, California,
                                                                        United States of America, represented by Wedig von der
                                                                        Osten-Sacken, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Hoffmann Eitle, Mu-
                  (Language of the case: German)                        nich (Federal Republic of Germany).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
11 April 2000 by the Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft,                    — annul the decision adopted on 14 February 2000 by the
Vienna, represented by Guido Kucsko, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs                Second Board of Appeal with regard to
Schönherr Barfuss Torggler & Partner, Vienna.
                                                                            — application No R 0237/1999-2: Mini Maglite pocket
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      torch manufactured by the applicant;
— annul the decision adopted on 31 January 2000 by the
                                                                            — application No R 0238/1999-2: MagLite 3C Cell
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                                 pocket torch manufactured by the applicant;
    the Internal Market concerning application No 000387233
    for the registration of ‘EASYBANK’ as a Community trade
    mark;                                                                   — application No R 0239/1999-2: MagLite 3D Cell
                                                                                 pocket torch manufactured by the applicant;
— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
    to pay the costs.
                                                                            — application No R 0240/1999-2: Mag Charger pocket
                                                                                 torch manufactured by the applicant;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            — application No R 0241/1999-2: Solitaire pocket torch
The trade mark con-           the verbal mark ‘EASYBANK’ —                       manufactured by the applicant;
cerned:                       application No 387233
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Goods or service con-         goods and services in Class 36
cerned:                       (direct banking services, in par-
                              ticular electronic banking ser-
                              vices)                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision contested be-        refusal of registration by the
fore the Board of Ap-         examiner                                  The trade marks con-          three-dimensional marks in the
peal:                                                                   cerned:                       form of pocket torches — appli-
                                                                                                      cation Nos 139527, 119552,
Grounds of claim:             — misapplication of Article                                             206789, 206689, 206870
                                  7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
                                  40/94                                 Goods or service con-         Goods in Classes 9 and 11 (in
                              — misapplication of Article               cerned:                       particular, pocket torches with
                                  7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No                                       accessories)
                                  40/94
                                                                        Decision contested be-        Refusal of registration by the
                                                                        fore the Board of Ap-         examiner
                                                                        peal:
 ---pagebreak--- C 163/32              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.6.2000
Grounds of claim:            — joinder of five appeal cases by          The application is based on the following pleas in law:
                                  the Board of Appeal without
                                  the consent of the party con-
                                                                        — The Council committed a manifest error of assessment in
                                  cerned
                                                                            determining the date for the retroactive application of the
                             — misapplication of Article 4 of               regulation. As it is stated in recital 134 of the regulation,
                                  Regulation (EC) No 40/94                  the anti-dumping proceedings were terminated in order to
                             — misapplication of Article                    respect the principle of non-discrimination with regard to
                                  7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No             imports from other third countries. The applicant submits
                                  40/94                                     that this discrimination has existed since the expiry of the
                                                                            original measures against Japan on 4th December 1997.
                             — misapplication of Article                    The retroactive termination of the proceedings should
                                  7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No             therefore apply from that date onwards.
                                  40/94
                                                                        — The Council has failed to provide sufficient reasoning for
                                                                            its determination of the date by which the contested
                                                                            regulation should apply.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 22, 21.1.2000, p. 1.
Action brought on 14 April 2000 by Europe Chemi-Con
(Deutschland) GmbH against the Council of the European
                             Union
                         (Case T-89/00)
                        (2000/C 163/63)
                                                                        Action brought on 18 April 2000 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                                 (Case T-90/00)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 14 April 2000 by Europe Chemi-Con                                                (2000/C 163/64)
(Deutschland) GmbH (Nürnberg, Germany), represented by
Dr. Konstantinos Adamantopoulos and Mr. Juan José Gutiérrez
Gisbert, of Hammond Suddards, Brussels.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— annul the last indent of Article 3 of Council Regulation              European Communities on 18 April 2000 by Lars Bo Rasmus-
    (EC) No 173/2000 in so far as it does not state that                sen, residing at Dalheim, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,
    the retroactive effect of the regulation shall apply from           represented by Michel Karp and Joëlle Choucroun, of the
    4 December 1997 onwards;                                            Luxembourg Bar.
— order the Council to bear the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — annul the decision of the Commission of 2 August 1999
                                                                            to apply Article 85 of the Staff Regulations to the mission
                                                                            undertaken by the applicant from 7 to 11 March 1998 to
The applicant seeks the annulment of Article 3 of Council                   Dublin;
Regulation (EC) No 173/2000 of 24 January 2000 terminating
the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of certain
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay token damages of one franc as
large aluminium electrolytic capacitors originating in Japan,
                                                                            compensation for the non-material damage suffered;
the Republic of Korea and Taiwan(1). It challenges the date
which the Council fixed for the retroactive application of the
regulation, namely 28 February 1999.                                    — order the defendant to pay the costs.