CELEX: C2003/112/72
Language: en
Date: 2003-05-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-82/03: Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

10.5.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 112/37
Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister                      Decision of the Oppo-         Registration refused
AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                  sition Division:
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                         Decision of the Board of      Rejection of the applicant’s oppo-
                          (Case T-81/03)                                 Appeal:                       sition
                                                                         Pleas in law:                 —     Infringement of Article 73 of
                         (2003/C 112/71)
                                                                                                             Regulation (EC) No 40/94;
                                                                                                       —     Misapplication             of
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                                                             Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                                             (EC) No 40/94;
                        submitted: German)
                                                                                                       —     Incorrect assessment of the
                                                                                                             similarity of the marks.
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 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister AG, Wolfenbüttel
(Germany), represented by Chr. Drzymalla, lawyer. Licorera
Zacapaneca S.A., Zacapa (Guatemala) was also a party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister
                                                                         AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the                           Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      Marks and Designs) of 19 December 2002 (Case R 412/
      2002-1);                                                                                     (Case T-82/03)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                                  (2003/C 112/72)
                                                                         (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                                 submitted: German)
Applicant for Com-             Licorera Zacapaneca S.A.
munity trade mark:
Community trade mark           Figurative mark ‘VENADO’ —
sought:                        Application No 986455 lodged in           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                               respect of goods in Classes 32 and        Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before
                               33 (inter alia mineral and aerated        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                               waters and other non-alcoholic            on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister AG, Wolfenbüttel
                               drinks, rum, rum-based liqueurs,          (Germany), represented by Chr. Drzymalla, lawyer. Licorera
                               brandy)                                   Zacapaneca S.A., Zacapa (Guatemala) was also a party to the
                                                                         proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
Proprietor of mark or          The applicant
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Mark or sign cited in          Figurative mark consisting of a
opposition:                    stag’s head with a cross, registered      —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
                               in respect of goods in Classes 18,              Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                               25, 32 and 33 (inter alia                       Marks and Designs) of 19 December 2002 (Case R 382/
                               umbrellas,      clothing,      non-             2002-1);
                               alcoholic beverages in so far as
                               included in Class 32, wines and
                               spirits) — Trade mark No 337337           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 112/38               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           10.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Applicant for Com-            Licorera Zacapaneca S.A.                     —      annul the decision of the defendant refusing the applicant
munity trade mark:                                                                access to certain legislative proposals containing the
                                                                                  identity of Member States’ positions, and to a legal
Community trade mark          Figurative mark ‘VENADO’ —                          opinion drawn up by the Council’s Legal Service.
sought:                       Application No 986000 lodged in
                              respect of goods in Classes 32 and
                              33 (inter alia mineral and aerated           —      order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.
                              waters and other non-alcoholic
                              drinks, rum, rum-based liqueurs,
                              brandy)
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant                                Pleas in law and main arguments
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:
Mark or sign cited in         Figurative mark consisting of a              The applicant is an Italian Member of the European Parliament.
opposition:                   stag’s head with a cross, registered         On 22 October 2002 the applicant submitted a request to the
                              in respect of goods in Classes 18,           defendant requesting access to the documents appearing on
                              25, 32 and 33 (inter alia                    the agenda of the 2455th meeting of the Council (Justice and
                              umbrellas,        clothing,      non-        Home Affairs) which took place in Luxembourg on 14 and
                              alcoholic beverages in so far as             15 October 2002. In its reply, dated 5 November 2002, the
                              included in Class 32, wines and              defendant indicated that full access could be granted to most
                              spirits) — Trade mark No 337337              of the documents requested by the applicant. However, with
                                                                           regard to three legislative proposals, the defendant indicated
Decision of the Oppo-         Registration refused                         that the applicant could be granted only partial access, and in
sition Division:                                                           particular that access could not be granted to those parts of
                                                                           the proposals identifying the positions taken by the national
Decision of the Board of      Rejection of the applicant’s oppo-           delegations on the subject matters under discussion. The
Appeal:                       sition                                       defendant further refused to grant access to a fourth document
                                                                           which contained a legal opinion of the defendant’s legal
Pleas in law:                 —      Infringement of Article 73 of         service.
                                     Regulation (EC) No 40/94;
                              —      Misapplication              of
                                     Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation         In support of his application the applicant submits the
                                     (EC) No 40/94;                        following contentions:
                              —      Incorrect assessment of the
                                     similarity of the marks.              —      By refusing access to the documents mentioned above,
                                                                                  the defendant violated Articles 4, paragraphs 2 and 3 of
                                                                                  Regulation EC/1049/2001 (1) as well as the principle of
                                                                                  proportionality.
                                                                           —      the defendant violated Article 253 EC and Article 7,
                                                                                  paragraphs 1 and 2 of Regulation EC/1049/2001 in that
Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Maurizio Turco                              it failed to provide sufficient reasons for its Decision
          against the Council of the European Union
                                                                           —      the defendant violated citizens’ fundamental political and
                         (Case T-84/03)                                           civil rights as guaranteed by international and European
                                                                                  conventions and the European Union treaties, in particu-
                        (2003/C 112/73)                                           lar Article 6 EU, by censoring Member States’ positions
                                                                                  when acting as a legislator.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           (1 ) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
                                                                                of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
An action against the Council of the European Union was                         European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                      L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43).
Communities on 28 February 2003 by Maurizio Turco,
Pulsano, Italy, represented by Mr O. W. Brouwer and Mr
Thomas Janssens, Lawyers.