CELEX: C2003/171/68
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-173/03: Action brought on 19 May 2003 by Anne Geddes against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

C 171/40                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      19.7.2003
—      Has not given due weight to the applicant’s interest in              Pleas in law and main arguments
       receiving the requested documentation
                                                                            Applicant for Com-           The applicant.
                                                                            munity trade mark:
Moreover, the applicant doesn’t accept the Commission’s
contention that the Member States would have to be consulted
in relation to the submissions made by them in the minutes. It              Community trade mark         Figurative mark NLCollection —
is the applicant’s position that, in accordance with Article 4(4)           sought:                      Application No 1082809 for
of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, a consultation with a Member                                               goods in Class 25 (articles of
State shall take place only when it is not clear whether a                                               clothing, footwear and headgear).
document shall or shall not be disclosed. Furthermore, the
final decision as to whether or not a document shall be released
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or        NAULOVER SA
remains with the Commission, and this must be reasoned and                  sign cited in the oppo-
clearly justified as falling within one of the exemptions                   sition proceedings:
provided for in the access regulation.
                                                                            Mark or sign cited in        Figurative mark NL (Community
                                                                            opposition:                  trade mark No 13417 and Span-
( 1) OJ L 291 of 6.12.1995, p. 40.
                                                                                                         ish trade mark No 1329084).
( 2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
     the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
     Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of              Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the opposition.
     31.5.2001, p. 43).                                                     sition Division:
                                                                            Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                            Appeal:                      Opposition Division and accept-
                                                                                                         ance of the opposition with
                                                                                                         respect to Community trade mark
                                                                                                         No 13417.
                                                                            Pleas in law:                Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
Action brought on 19 May 2003 by New Look Limited                                                        of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
                                                                                                         lihood of confusion).
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                          (Case T-171/03)
                         (2003/C 171/67)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Action brought on 19 May 2003 by Anne Geddes against
                                                                                the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                                    (Case T-173/03)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                          (2003/C 171/68)
19 May 2003 by New Look Limited, established in Weymouth,
Dorset (United Kingdom), represented by R. Ballester and
G. Marín, lawyers.                                                                            (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision of OHIM (First Board of Appeal) of                An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
       15 April 2003 in Case No R 019/2003-1;                               Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 19 May 2003 by Anne Geddes,
                                                                            Auckland, New Zealand, represented by Mr G. Farrington,
—      order OHIM and any intervener to pay the costs.                      Solicitor.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 171/41
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                European Communities on 21 May 2003 by Auna Operadores
                                                                           de Telecomunicaciones, S.A., whose registered office is in
—     annul the decision adopted on 13 February 2003 by the                Barcelona (Spain) represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
      Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation               Natalia Lacalle Mangas, lawyers, Retecal Sociedad Operadora
      in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in case             de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, S.A. whose regis-
      R 839/2001-4;                                                        tered office is in Boecilli, Valladolid (Spain) Euskaltel, S.A.,
                                                                           whose registered office is in Zamudio, Bizkaia (Spain) Telecable
—     order the Defendant to remit the application to its                  de Asturias, S.A. (a company arising from the merger between
      Examination Division for re-examination of Community                 Telecable de Avilés, S.A., Telecable de Oviedo, S.A. and
      Trade Mark number 1864107.                                           Telecable de Gijón, S.A.), whose registered office is in Oviedo
                                                                           (Spain), R. Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A., whose
                                                                           registered office is in A Coruña (Spain), and Tenaria, S.A.,
                                                                           whose registered office is in Cordovilla, Navarra (Spain)
                                                                           represented by José Mª Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyer.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The trade mark con-            The      word       mark       ‘NUR-
cerned:                        SERYROOM’         — application             The applicants claim that the Court should:
                               No 1864107
Goods or service con-          Goods in Class 16, 18, 21, 25 and
                                                                           —     annul the decisions of the Commission of 14 March
cerned:                        28 (e.g. books, clothes, plush toys)              2003 in so far as the Commission took the view that the
                                                                                 agreement of 29 January 2003 did not give rise to a new
Decision         contested     Refusal of registration by the                    concentration;
before the Board of            examiner
Appeal:
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the entire costs of the
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the appeal
                                                                                 proceedings.
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:              Misapplication of Article 7(1)(c)
                               of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-            Pleas in law and main arguments
     munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
                                                                           The applicants in the present action are contesting the
                                                                           decisions of 14 March 2003 by which the Commission decided
                                                                           to take no further action on the complaints lodged by them
                                                                           against an agreement between the companies Sogecable and
                                                                           Telefónica on 29 January 2003 which, in their view, gives rise
Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Auna Operadores de
                                                                           to a new concentration by comparison with the concentration
Telecomunicaciones, S.A., Retecal Sociedad Operadora de
                                                                           previously notified on 3 July 2002, which was referred to the
Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, S.A. Euskaltel,                     national authorities by decision of 14 August 2002 ( 1).
S.A., Telecable de Asturias, S.A. (a company arising from
the merger between Telecable de Avilés, S.A., Telecable
de Oviedo, S.A. and Telecable de Gijón, S.A.), R. Cable y
Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A. and Tenaria, S.A. against
         Commission of the European Communities                            According to the applicants, the abovementioned agreement
                                                                           of 20 January 2003 envisages the possibility, which had
                                                                           initially been discarded, that Telefónica’s final share of Soge-
                         (Case T-180/03)                                   cable’s capital (23 %) should be greater than the share held by
                                                                           the company’s reference partners. The agreement also provides
                         (2003/C 171/69)                                   that Telefónica will waive certain rights affecting questions of
                                                                           policy arising from the major shareholding of those assets by
                                                                           Prisa and Groupe Canal+. On the other hand, Telefónica would
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         remain a shareholder in Sogecable with effect from the
                                                                           implementation of the concentration operation. Furthermore,
                                                                           with the purpose of assisting the integration of their platforms,
                                                                           Prisa, Groupe Canal+ and Telefónica each agreed to provide
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  Sogecable with a loan with profit participation amounting to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 EUR 50 million repayable in 10 years. It was also agreed