CELEX: C2001/108/42
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-6/01: Action brought on 9 January 2001 by Matratzen Concord Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

C 108/22                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.4.2001
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    9 January 2001 by Matratzen Concord Aktiengesellschaft,
                                                                              Cologne (Germany), represented by Wolf-W. Wodrich,
                       of 30 November 2000                                    Rechtsanwalt.
in Case T-175/00: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)                                The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
                                                                              was Hukla Germany S.A., Castellbisbal (Spain).
(Action for failure to act — Articles 81 and 82 EC — No
    need to adjudicate — Article 86 EC — Admissibility)
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2001/C 108/41)
                    (Language of the case: English)                           —     annul the decision adopted on 31 October 2000 by the
                                                                                    defendant (Second Board of Appeal) in joined appeals
In Case T-175/00: Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,                            Nos R 728/1999-2 and R 792/1999-2;
Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R.St John Mur-
phy, Solicitor, 3 King’s Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London
(United Kingdom), against Commission of the European                          —     reject the opposition entered on 21 April 1998 by the
Communities (Agent: R. Lyal) — application for a declaration                        opposing party (Case No B 32500);
that the Commission has failed to act by not taking a decision
on a complaint (IV/34.824 — Goldstein/GMC) against certain
anticompetitive practices, lodged by the applicant under                      —     order the defendant to register the Community trade
Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962,                        mark (pictorial mark) ‘MATRATZEN Markt CONCORD’
First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty                      (trade mark application No 395 632 of 10 October
(OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87) — the Court of                       1996) in the Register of Community trade marks;
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given an order on 30 November 2000, in which                   —     order the opposing party to pay all the costs and expenses
it:                                                                                 of the proceedings before the Opposition Division and
                                                                                    the Board of Appeal and of the present court proceedings.
1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the claim for a declaration of
      failure to act in so far as it relates to the Commission’s failure
      to act in connection with Articles 81 and 82 EC.
2.    In so far as it is directed against the Commission’s failure to         Pleas in law and main arguments
      act in connection with Article 86 EC, the application is
      inadmissible.
                                                                              Applicant for the Com-       Matratzen     Concord     Aktienge-
3.    The parties shall bear their own costs.                                 munity mark:                 sellschaft
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.00.                                                      Trade mark applied for:      The pictorial mark ‘MATRATZEN
                                                                                                           Markt CONCORD’ — trade mark
                                                                                                           application No 395 632 for goods
                                                                                                           in Classes 10, 20 and 24
                                                                              Proprietor of an oppos-      Hukla Germany S.A., Castellbis-
Action brought on 9 January 2001 by Matratzen Concord                         ing mark or of an oppos-     bal, Spain
Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for Harmonisation                       ing sign:
     in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                              Opposing mark or sign:       The Spanish registered mark
                             (Case T-6/01)                                                                 ‘MATRATZEN’ for goods in Class
                                                                                                           20
                           (2001/C 108/42)
                                                                              Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the application in
(Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with Article            sition Division:             respect of goods in Classes 20 and
131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the                                                   24. Continuation of the appli-
                    application is drafted: German)                                                        cation procedure in respect of
                                                                                                           goods in Class 10
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                       Decision of the Board of     Appeal of the opposing party
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                        Appeal:                      upheld
 ---pagebreak--- 7.4.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 108/23
Grounds of claim:             Infringement of Regulation (EC)           In 1995, pursuant to Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17
                              No 40/94 on the Community                 he lodged a complaint with the Commission in respect of
                              trade mark (Article 8) — Infringe-        certain allegedly anticompetitive rules applied by the General
                              ment of the EC Treaty (Articles           Council of the Bar of England and Wales. The complaint related
                              28 and 29 EC) — No similarity             particularly to the requirement that a barrister practising at
                              between the conflicting trade             that Bar is to supply legal services only if briefed or instructed
                              marks — Impermissible splitting-          by a professional client. The applicant contends that this rule
                              up of the mark into its individual        constitutes a restriction of competition contrary to Article 81
                              component parts — Failure to              EC, inasmuch as it deprives the consumers of legal services of
                              have regard to the case-law of the        the ability to have access to the services provided by barristers
                              Court of Justice concerning the           practising at that Bar.
                              overall impression given by a
                              mark — Right of a competitor in
                              the market to combine the name            By letter of 12 January 2001, the Commission rejected the
                              of its main products with its com-        applicant’s complaint.
                              pany name — Change in the legal
                              position since registration of the
                              opposing mark.
                                                                        In the present case, the applicant submits inter alia that the
                                                                        Commission infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC by wrongly
                                                                        examining the validity of national legislation and by wrongly
                                                                        assessing the data from which it may be concluded that the
                                                                        essential elements of a situation, in which Articles 81, 82 and
                                                                        86 EC apply, are in fact present. Furthermore, he asserts that
                                                                        the Commission has misrepresented the Community nature
                                                                        and effects of the legal framework at Community level
                                                                        regulating the profession of lawyer in Directives 77/249/EEC,
Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Anthony Gold-                      89/48/EEC and 98/5/EC.
stein against the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                         (Case T-18/01)
                        (2001/C 108/43)
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita Brands
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and
European Communities on 25 January 2001 by Anthony                      Chiquita Italia, S.p.A. against the Commission of the
Goldstein, represented by Mr R St J Murphy, Solicitor, of                                   European Communities
Merriman White, London (UK).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (Case T-19/01)
—     Annul the decision of the Commission of 12 January
      2001 rejecting the complaint made pursuant to Regu-                                        (2001/C 108/44)
      lation No 17 by the applicant concerning infringement
      of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General Council of the
      Bar of England and Wales
                                                                                           (Language of the case: English)
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita
                                                                        Brands International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and
The applicant completed, in 1999, the Bar Vocational Course,            Chiquita Italia, S.p.A., represented by Mr C Pouncey, Solicitor,
a prerequisite for admission to the Bar of England and Wales            and Mr L Van Den Hende, Advocaat, of Herbert Smith, London
and the practice of law as a barrister.                                 (UK).