CELEX: C2003/070/41
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-6/03: Action brought on 9 January 2003 by R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc. and RJR Acquisition Corp. against the Commission of the European Communities

22.3.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 70/25
The applicants further claim that ‘feta’ does not fulfil the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
conditions for registration pursuant to Council Regulation
No 2081/92. ‘Feta’ is a generic term which cannot be protected
under that regulation. ‘Feta’ is a generally used term of reference         —     declare the present application admissible;
for a given dairy product. The evolution in the Greek legislation
shows that ‘feta’ has been construed as a generic term in
Greece as well, just as the Council and the Commission in                   —     annul the Commission Decision resulting in the filing of
their formulations have treated feta as a generic product.                        the third complaint ( 1) on 30 October 2002 before the
Furthermore, Greek feta is not one uniform type of product,                       New York District Court against the applicants, as
leading to the conclusion that the aim is in reality the                          publicly announced by the Commission in its Press
protection of Greek cheese per se.                                                Release IP/05/1592 of 31 October 2002;
                                                                            —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
Lastly, the applicants submit that the registration of the term                   proceedings, including the costs of the applicants and
‘feta’ is contrary to the principle laid down in Article 7(4) of                  any intervening parties.
Council Regulation No 2081/92, fundamental principles of EC
law and therefore the Treaty, including Article 12 EC and
Article 34(3) EC, and also the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations and the proportionality principle.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002
     amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard
     to the name ‘Feta’ (OJ 2002 L 277, p 10).
( 2) OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1.
( 3) OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1.
                                                                            The applicants are the defendants in legal proceedings brought
( 4) Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96 Denmark and               by the Commission on behalf of the European Community
     Others v Commission [1999] ECR I-1541.                                 and a number of Member States before a United States court
                                                                            seeking treble and punitive damages, equitable relief and
                                                                            various types of injunctive relief for the applicants’ alleged
                                                                            participation in money laundering schemes.
                                                                            The applicants submit that the European Community, rep-
                                                                            resented by the Commission, lacks the competence to adopt
                                                                            the contested act and to bring action on its own behalf and on
Action brought on 9 January 2003 by R. J. Reynolds                          behalf of Member States for the following reasons:
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc. and RJR Acqui-
sition Corp. against the Commission of the European                         —     Article 2 EC does not confer any specific and autonomous
                             Communities                                          powers upon the institutions;
                             (Case T-6/03)                                  —     Article 281 EC merely states that the EC enjoys legal
                                                                                  personality, without addressing any issue of competence;
                            (2003/C 70/41)
                                                                            —     Article 282 EC does not confer any competence on the
                                                                                  EC, represented by the Commission to bring an action
                    (Language of the case: English)                               before the court of a non-Member State;
                                                                            —     Article 280 EC does not grant the EC, represented by the
                                                                                  Commission, any competence to bring legal action for
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                         the protection of the Community’s financial interests.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                        Article 280 only grants limited competence on the
European Communities on 9 January 2003 by R. J. Reynolds                          Community to ensure that Member States introduce
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., Winston-Salem, United States of                           measures that are effective to protect the Community’s
America, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Winston-Salem,                           financial interest and to assist the Member States in this
United States of America R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International,                    task;
Inc., Winston-Salem, United States of America and RJR
Acquisition Corp, Wilmington, United States of America,
represented by Mr Eric Morgan de Rivery and Ms Francesca                    —     even if one assumes that Article 280 EC grants such
Marchini Camia, Lawyers.                                                          competence on the EC, the contested act does not fulfil
 ---pagebreak--- C 70/26                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       22.3.2003
       the requirements of Article 280(1) EC, i.e. it does not aim          The applicant claims that the Court should:
       at countering fraud which affects the financial interests of
       the Community, it does not follow the procedure of
       Article 280(4) EC combined with Article 251 EC, and it               —     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
       does not comply with the express exclusion of criminal                     Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM)
       law and the administration of justice in Article 280(4)                    of 3 October 2002 in Joined Cases R 700/2000-4 and
       EC;                                                                        R 746/2000-4;
—      the contested act circumvents existing Community legis-
       lation on money laundering;                                          —     refuse to register Community trade mark No 203570;
—      the EC, represented by the Commission, has assumed
       the self-appointed role of ‘European Public Prosecutor’,             —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
       contrary to the Treaty and to the will of the Member
       States.
The applicants allege that the EC, represented by the Com-
mission, has engaged in forum shopping aimed at bypassing                   Pleas in law and main arguments
the shortcomings of the Members States and the EC, and that
it is not constitutionally competent to act on behalf of the
Member States.
                                                                            Applicant for the Com-       EMILIO PUCCI S.R.L.
                                                                            munity trade mark:
Furthermore, the applicants submit that the contested act
violates the appropriate means of settling disputes concerning
the interpretation and application of the Treaty pursuant to                The Community trade          ‘Emilio Pucci’, in manuscript
Article 292 EC. It also violates the obligation to state reasons            mark concerned:              handwriting — Application
and the following general principles and fundamental rights:                                             No 203570 for goods in Class-
the principle of proportionality, the principles of legitimate                                           es 3, 18, 24 and 25
expectations and of legal certainty as well as the rights of
defence and due process. Finally, the applicant maintains that
                                                                            Proprietor of the right to   The applicant
the defendant has misused its powers by adopting the contested
                                                                            the trade mark or sign
act.
                                                                            asserted by way of oppo-
                                                                            sition in the opposition
( 1) The decision to commence the first proceedings was contested by        proceedings:
     the applicants in Case T-379/00 (JO C 79 of 10.3.2001, p. 24).
     The decision to commence the second proceedings was challenged
     by the applicants in Case T-260/01 (JO C 3 of 5.1.2002 p. 39).         Trade mark or sign           EMIDIO TUCCI (in manuscript
                                                                            asserted by way of oppo-     handwriting No 1908876 for
                                                                            sition in the opposition     goods in Class 3, and No 855782
                                                                            proceedings:                 for goods in Class 25)
                                                                            Decision of the Oppo-        Registration refused for goods in
                                                                            sition Division:             Classes 3, 18 and 25 and appli-
Action brought on 10 January 2003 by El Corte Inglés                                                     cation for registration upheld for
against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                                  goods in Class 25 and for certain
                (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                                                         goods in Class 18
                            (Case T-8/03)                                   Decision of the Board of     Appeal brought by the opponent
                                                                            Appeal:                      dismissed and action brought by
                           (2003/C 70/42)                                                                the applicant upheld in respect of
                                                                                                         the goods refused in Class 18
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                            Grounds of claim:            Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                                                                                                         of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
                                                                                                         lihood of confusion) and of
An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                               Article 8(5) thereof
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
10 January 2003 by El Corte Inglés, whose registered office is
in Madrid, represented by Juan Luis Rivas Zurdo.