CELEX: C2002/233/51
Language: en
Date: 2002-09-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-213/02: Action brought on 12 July 2002 by SNF S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

C 233/28              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.9.2002
—     in so far as necessary, annul that decision inasmuch as          name ‘Champagne’ has been used in the production of wine in
      the Council and the Commission approved the other                the area for many years and is thus the industrial and
      articles of the Agreement between the European Com-              commercial property of the applicants.
      munity and the Swiss Confederation on Trade in Agricul-
      tural Products, as well as the Agreement on Mutual
      Recognition in Relation to Conformity Assessment                 Furthermore, a total ban on the use by the applicants of
      between the European Community and the Swiss Confed-             the name ‘Champagne’ does not observe the principle of
      eration, the Agreement between the European Com-                 proportionality. The applicants point out that the wine they
      munity and the Swiss Confederation on Certain Aspects            produce is a non-sparkling wine which does not compete
      of Government Procurement, the Agreement on Scientific           with French champagne. There is therefore no likelihood of
      and Technological Cooperation between the European               confusion. In addition, there are less restrictive ways in which
      Community and the European Atomic Energy Com-                    to achieve the same objective, such as by indicating the country
      munity, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of         of origin on the label.
      the other part, the Agreement between the European
      Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Carriage
      of Goods and Passengers by Rail and Road, the Agreement
      between the European Community and the Swiss Confed-
      eration on Air Transport, the Agreement on the Free
      Movement of Persons between the European Community
      and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss
      Confederation, of the other part;
                                                                       Action brought on 12 July 2002 by SNF S.A. against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
—     declare that the European Community, as represented by
      the Council and the European Commission, is liable and
      order the defendants to compensate in full the applicant                                 (Case T-213/02)
      wine growers for all damage arising from the ‘Champagne
      Clause’;
                                                                                               (2002/C 233/51)
—     order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.                             (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        European Communities on 12 July 2002 by SNF S.A.,
                                                                       represented by Koen Van Maldegem and Claudio Mereu at
                                                                       McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP in Brussels, Belgium
The applicants are, on the one hand, owners of vineyards in
the municipality of Champagne, in the canton of Vaud in                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Switzerland and, on the other, acting in defence of the interests
of those wine growers.                                                 —     order the partial annulment of the Twenty-Sixth Com-
                                                                             mission Directive 2002/34/EC of 15 April 2002 adapting
                                                                             to technical progress Annexes II, III and VII to Council
                                                                             Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws
                                                                             of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1), so
By the contested decision, the Council and the Commission
                                                                             as to remove polyacrylamides from the measure;
approved seven bilateral agreements between the Community
and the Swiss Confederation; one of those agreements concerns
agricultural trade. One of the annexes to that agreement               —     order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in
includes a provision prohibiting use of the name ‘Champagne’                 these proceedings.
for wine originating in the canton of Vaud.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of their arguments, the applicants allege, first,
breach of general principles of law including right to their
identity, to property and to the freedom to pursue professional        The applicant seeks the partial annulment of the above-
activities. The word ‘Champagne’ is also protected in Swiss            mentioned Directive due to the fact that the Commission has
law, where it is an appellation communale d’origine contrôlée          placed restrictions on the use of the applicant’s products,
(registered municipal designation of origin). Moreover, the            polyacrylamides, as ingredients in cosmetic products. The
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/29
applicant submits that in doing so, the Commission has                     Action brought on 17 July 2002 by Fieldturf Inc. against
disregarded several procedural rules set forth in Council                  the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
Directive 76/768/EEC (2), as last amended by Commission                                       (Trademarks and Designs)
Directive 2000/41/EC ( 3), which the contested Directive pur-
ports to implement.
                                                                                                   (Case T-216/02)
                                                                                                   (2002/C 233/52)
It alleges that the procedural safeguards set out in the
Cosmetics Directive and in the Commission Decision estab-
lishing the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and                                     (Language of the case: English)
Non Food Products intended for Consumers (4) have been
violated. By not adequately informing the applicant of the
ongoing deliberations and the status of the Committee’s
opinion on acrylamide, by disrespecting procedural safeguards
aimed at preserving the impartiality of the decision-making,               An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
by using scientific standards that are at odds with prevailing             Market (Trademarks and Designs) was brought before the
EU decisions, by manifestly misinterpreting the data submitted             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
by the applicant and by not adequately allowing the applicant              17 July 2002 by Fieldturf Inc. Montreal (Canada), represented
to state its case and express its view on studies co-authored by           by Dr Patrick Baronikians at Schwarz Kurtze Schniewind
it, the Commission has violated the applicant’s rights of                  Kelwing Wicke in Munich, Germany
defence in a way which affects the validity of the contested
Directive. Furthermore, the defendant omitted to notify the
applicant of the Directive, so that the legislative process is
affected by a procedural deficiency which necessarily affects its          The applicant claims that the Court should:
validity.
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
                                                                                 the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                 (Trademarks and Designs) of 15 May 2002 (Case R 462/
                                                                                 2001-1) concerning the registration of the trademark
The applicant submits that the contested Directive improperly                    ‘LOOKS LIKE GRASS... FEELS LIKE GRASS... PLAYS LIKE
includes polyacrylamides in Annex III to the Cosmetics                           GRASS’ and direct that the claimed mark will be registered
Directive based on a calculation of cancer potency which is at                   for all the goods and service applied for;
odds with the more specific and prevailing review of acrylami-
de under the EU chemicals legislation. The contested Directive             —     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
also infringes a series of well established principles of Com-                   Market (Trademarks and Designs) to pay the costs of the
munity law, e.g. the duty to state reasons, the principle                        applicant.
of proportionality, the principle of uniform application of
Community law and the principle of equal treatment. Finally,
the Commission did not consider all interests at stake and
ignored the recent scientific findings.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
( 1) OJ L 102, p. 19.                                                      The trade mark con-           The word mark ‘LOOKS LIKE
( 2) Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approxi-          cerned:                       GRASS... FEELS LIKE GRASS...
     mation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic                                        PLAYS LIKE GRASS’ — appli-
     products (OJ L 262, p. 169).                                                                        cation No 1712918
( 3) Commission Directive 2000/41/EC of 19 June 2000 postponing
     for a second time the date after which animal tests are prohibited
     for ingredients or combinations of ingredients of cosmetic            Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 27
     products (OJ L 145, p 25).                                            cerned:                       and 37 (i.a. synthetic surfaces for
( 4) Commission Decision 97/579/EC of 23 July 1997 setting up                                            athletic activities)
     Scientific Committees in the field of consumer health and food
     safety (OJ L 237, p. 18).
                                                                           Decision         contested    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                           before the Board of           examiner
                                                                           Appeal:
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
                                                                           Appeal: