CELEX: C2003/070/39
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-387/02: Action brought on 13 December 2002 by Dorte Schmidt-Brown against Commission of the European Communities

22.3.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 70/23
Action brought on 29 November 2002 by Mühlens GmbH                          Decision of the Oppo-          Dismissal of the opposition
& Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the                        sition Board:
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                            Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                            Appeal:
                          (Case T-355/02)
                                                                            Grounds of claim:              —    The goods are partly ident-
                          (2003/C 70/38)                                                                        ical, or to a great extent
                                                                                                                similar
(Language of the case to be decided in accordance with Article 131(2)                                      —    There is great similarity in
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was                                               relation to the marks
                           drafted: German)
                                                                                                           —    There is a risk of confusion
                                                                                                                between the marks that are
                                                                                                                comparable
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
29 November 2002 by Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG, Köln
(Germany), represented by T. Schulte-Beckhausen. Also a party
before the Board of Appeal: Zirh International CDRP, New
York, United States of America
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Action brought on 13 December 2002 by Dorte Schmidt-
                                                                            Brown against Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
      1 October 2002 (File No R 657/2001-2;
                                                                                                    (Case T-387/02)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                                     (2003/C 70/39)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Applicant for the Com-           ZIRH International CDRP
munity trade mark:
Community trade mark             Word mark ‘ZIRH’ for goods and             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
concerned:                       services in Classes 3 and 42 (inter        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                 alia, Soaps; perfumery; essential          European Communities on 13 December 2002 by Dorte
                                 oils; cosmetics; hair lotions and          Schmidt-Brown, residing in Wellen (Germany), represented by
                                 Hygienic and beauty care services)         Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.
                                 — Application No 1316744
Owner of the right to            The applicant
the trade mark or sign                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
                                                                            —     annul the decision of the Commission of 26 April 2002
proceedings:
                                                                                  rejecting the applicant’s request seeking:
Trade mark or sign               The figurative mark ‘Sir’ for Goods
asserted by way of oppo-         in Class 3 (Perfumery, essential                 —    aid and assistance from her institution in the action
sition in the opposition         oils, cosmetics, dentifrices, soaps,                  brought before the courts of the United Kingdom
proceedings:                     hair lotions.                                         against Eurogramme Ltd;
 ---pagebreak--- C 70/24                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.3.2003
       —    access, permission to copy and to produce before              Action brought on 19 December 2002 by Arla Foods
            the courts all documents relating to the project              and Others against the Commission of the European
            PRODCOM concerning Eurogramme Ltd directly or                                            Communities
            indirectly and, in particular, those appearing in the
            list enclosed with the originating request together
            with all the elements of the internal investigation                                    (Case T-397/02)
            file carried out by the Head of Unit DG EUROSTAT/
            R.1 ‘Administrative and personnel matters’ including
            the audit report of 21 December 2000;                                                   (2003/C 70/40)
       —    financial assistance to allow her to cover the entire                           (Language of the case: Danish)
            cost of defending the action seeking compensation
            for non-material, professional and material damage
            suffered as a result of defamatory statements made
            against her;
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 19 December 2002 by Arla Foods,
                                                                          Viby J (Denmark), and eight other Danish cheese producers,
                                                                          represented by Georg Lett, advokat.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant was an official of the Commission, working for              —      Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of
DG EUROSTAT. She was responsible for the PRODCOM                                 14 October 2002 (1) on the registration of the name ‘Feta’
project in respect of which Eurogramme Ltd entered into a                        under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
contract for the provision of statistical services.                              Regulation No 2081/92.
                                                                          —      Order the Commission to pay the costs.
According to the applicant, Eurogramme Ltd made serious
accusations against the applicant in this respect. Subsequently,
the applicant brought an action on the grounds of defamation
against Eurogramme Ltd before the courts in the United
Kingdom.                                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
In that context, the applicant submitted a request within the             Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations seeking to              protection of geographical indications and designations of
obtain access and permission to copy and produce before the               origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs ( 2) introduced
courts in the United Kingdom all documents relating to                    Community rules governing inter alia designations for food-
the PRODCOM project. That request also sought financial                   stuffs. Under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of
assistance to allow her to cover the entire cost of defending             12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications
the action seeking compensation for damage suffered as a                  and designations of origin under the procedure laid down
result of defamatory statements made against her by Eurogram-             in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (3)
me Ltd. That request was rejected by the contested decision.              designations including ‘feta’ were registered. By judgment of
                                                                          16 March 1999 (4), the Court of Justice annulled Regulation
                                                                          No 1107/96 as regards the term ‘feta’. With the contested
In support of her application, the applicant alleges infringe-            regulation, the Commission has again registered the term ‘feta’
ment of Decision No 94/90 (1)on public access to Commission               as a protected geographical indication in favour of Greece.
documents and infringement of Article 19 of the Staff
Regulations. The applicant points out that the contested
decision gives no reason for refusing access to the file and              The applicants, all Danish producers of feta cheese, claim that
permission to produce such documents before the courts.                   the contested regulation should be annulled and submit that
                                                                          the regulation is vitiated by fundamental formal defects which
                                                                          lead to its being invalid as regards registration of the term
( 1) 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom: Commission Decision of 8 February           ‘feta’. According to the applicants, the Greek legislation was
     1994 on public access to Commission documents (OJ 1994 L 46,         enacted too late to enable the term ‘feta’ to be registered
     58).                                                                 pursuant to Article 17 of Council Regulation No 2081/92.
                                                                          Moreover, neither the principal points in Greece’s application
                                                                          nor technical goods specifications for the term ‘feta’ have been
                                                                          made public.