CELEX: C2003/124/41
Language: en
Date: 2003-05-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-66/03: Action brought on 26 February 2003 by Koffiebranderĳ en Theehandel "Drie Mollen sinds 1818" B.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

24.5.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 124/23
effect. Moreover, the right to due process of law is infringed            European Communities on 26 February 2003 by Koffiebrand-
by the case-handler’s inadequate knowledge of languages or                erij en Theehandel ‘Drie Mollen sinds 1818’ B.V., ’s-Hertogen-
the premature change of case-handler.                                     bosch, the Netherlands, represented by Mr P. Steinhauser,
                                                                          Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg. Manuel
                                                                          Nabeiro Silveria, Lda. was also a party to the proceedings
The applicant also submits that it is not guilty of any                   before the Board of Appeal.
infringement of Article 81(1) EC. It complains that the
Commission based its decision on an incoherent presentation
of the events. In the alternative, it submits that in any event it
cannot be charged with participation in a single infringement             The applicant claims that the Court should:
over a lengthy period. This leads to a reduction in gravity and
to the limitation of actions in respect of individual acts that
took place more than five years before the beginning of                   —     annul the decision of 17 December 2002 of the Second
proceedings.                                                                    Board of Appeal in case R 270/2001-2
                                                                          —     order the office to bear only its own costs.
Moreover, the applicant submits that the decision infringes
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 with regard to the upper
limit of the fine. The applicant is not the ultimate parent
company of ‘Unternehmensgruppe Knauf’ and it cannot be
held liable for the conduct of other companies, because the
Knauf undertaking is not connected via a single legal person              Pleas in law and main arguments
as ultimate parent company of the group. The applicant also
complains that the Commission failed to carry out the
necessary investigations in that respect.                                 Applicant for the Com-         Manuel Nabeiro Silveria, Lda.
                                                                          munity trade mark:
Furthermore, the applicant complains that the Commission
infringed Article 253 EC and Article 15(2) of Regulation                  Community trade mark           Figurative mark ‘GALAXIA’, for
No 17/62 as a result of the assessment of the fine, which                 sought:                        ‘coffee’ in class 30 (registration n
exceeded the limits of its discretion. Moreover, the Commission                                          812073)
infringed the principle of equal treatment, because it did not
reduce the applicant’s fine even though the applicant had
                                                                          Proprietor of mark or          KOFFIEBRANDERIJ EN THEE-
cooperated with the Commission to the same extent as BPB
                                                                          sign cited in the oppo-        HANDEL ‘DRIE MOLLEN SINDS
plc., whose fine was reduced by 30 %.
                                                                          sition proceedings:            1818’
Finally, the applicant complains of the excessive length of the           Mark or sign cited in          National marks ‘GALA’ for certain
procedure and claims that it is an infringement of Article 6(1)           opposition:                    goods in class 30
of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights.
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-          Opposition rejected.
                                                                          sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of       Opponent’s appeal dismissed.
                                                                          Appeal:
Action brought on 26 February 2003 by Koffiebranderij                     Pleas in law:                  —     misapplication of Article 42
en Theehandel ‘Drie Mollen sinds 1818’ B.V. against the                                                        paragraph 1 and Article 8
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                                                         paragraph 1 b) of Regu-
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                                     lation 40/94 (1). The appli-
                                                                                                               cant challenges the Board of
                                                                                                               Appeal’s conclusion that
                         (Case T-66/03)                                                                        there is no likelihood of con-
                                                                                                               fusion between the two
                                                                                                               marks.
                        (2003/C 124/41)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the