CELEX: C2002/084/77
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-474/01 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on 19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-129/00 between Procter & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

6.4.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 84/45
Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &                         the Commission of the European Communities, represented
Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on                       by M. Patakia, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court                   Luxembourg.
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-129/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM).                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                       (Case C-474/01 P)
                                                                       (1) declare that, by maintaining the obligation for patent
                                                                             agents, when providing services, either to maintain an
                         (2002/C 84/77)                                      official place of business on Luxembourg territory or,
                                                                             failing that, to maintain an official address care of an
                                                                             approved agent, and by failing to supply information
                                                                             concerning the precise conditions for the application of
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September                     Article 85(2) of the Law of 20 July 1992 and Articles 19
2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                 and 20 of the Law of 28 December 1988, the Grand
the European Communities in case T-129/00 between Procter                    Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
& Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the                         under Article 49 et seq. EC and Article 10 EC respectively;
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,                   (2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the judgment; insofar as the remainder of the
      action was dismissed;
                                                                       —     The obligation to maintain an official address, imposed
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance                 by Article 83(4) of the Law of 20 July 1992, constitutes a
      and on appeal.                                                         restriction on the principle of freedom to provide services
                                                                             as laid down by Article 49 EC, since it impedes the
                                                                             activities of the service provider by causing him to bear
                                                                             additional costs and obliging him to create professional
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              links with a local operator in the same sector, who may
                                                                             even be a competitor. Moreover, that obligation is likely
                                                                             to prompt foreign applicants to have recourse to the
See case C-473/01 P.                                                         services of patent agents established in Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 25.                                         —     The fact that the detailed information requested by the
                                                                             Commission has not been supplied means that it is
                                                                             impossible to establish whether it is justified, even as
                                                                             regards straightforward acts of an administrative nature,
                                                                             to require industrial property advisers in other Member
                                                                             States to fulfil the criteria for recognition of their
                                                                             professional        qualifications     (Council     Directive
                                                                             89/48/EEC (1)). That lack of any response constitutes a
Action brought on 11 December 2001 by the Commission                         failure to collaborate within the meaning of Article 10
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy                          EC.
                        of Luxembourg
                        (Case C-478/01)
                                                                       (1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
                                                                           system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
                         (2002/C 84/78)                                    on completion of professional education and training of at least
                                                                           three years’ duration (OJ L 19 of 21.1.1989, p. 16).
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice on 11 December 2001 by