CELEX: C2002/156/53
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-71/02: Action brought on 14 March 2002 by Classen Holding KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

29.6.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 156/27
Action brought on 14 March 2002 by Classen Holding                      Action brought on 19 March 2002 by Tetra Laval B.V.
KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   against the Commission of the European Communities
                             Market
                                                                                                 (Case T-80/02)
                         (Case T-71/02)
                                                                                                (2002/C 156/54)
                        (2002/C 156/53)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                          (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 March 2002 by Classen Holding                European Communities on 19 March 2002 by Tetra Laval
KG, represented by Mr Stephan von Petersdorff-Campen of                 B.V., represented by Mr Alexandre Vandencasteele and Mr
Rospatt Osten Pross Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf (Germany).                Denis Waelbroeck (Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff), Mr
                                                                        Andreas Weitbrecht, (Latham & Watkins) and Mr Sven Völcker
                                                                        (Wilmer Cutler & Pickering) of Brussels (Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Office dated 14 December 2001 (Appeal No. R0810/
      1999-2), registered letter of notification of the Decision
      received on 14 January 2002;                                      —      annul the contested Decision in its entirety;
—     order the Office to bear the costs of the action.                 —      order the Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant of the Com-         International Paper Company
munity trade mark:
                                                                        The applicant in the present case is primarily active in
Trade mark concerned:         Word           mark         BECKET        carton packaging. It envisaged a concentration with another
                              EXPRESSION — Application No               company, Sidel, mainly active in (polyester) packaging equip-
                              93880 for certain goods in                ment. This concentration was declared to be incompatible
                              class 16                                  with the common market and the EEA Agreement by the
                                                                        Commission. The applicant has introduced an application for
Proprietor of an oppos-       Classen Holding KG                        annulment of this Decision (Case T-5/02; Communication
ing trade mark or sign:                                                 published in OJ C 68, p. 19).
Opposing trade mark or        Word mark Expression for certain
sign:                         goods in class 16                         In the present case, the applicant contests the decision of the
                                                                        Commission to oblige the applicant to sell Sidel as a measure
Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition               taken to restore the conditions of effective competition
sition Division:                                                        pursuant to Article 8(4) of Council Regulation 4064/89 (1)
                                                                        (Merger Control Regulation).
Decision of the Board of      To declare the appeal inadmissible
Appeal:                       and reject the request for restitutio
                              in integrum
                                                                        The applicant submits in the first place that the contested
Pleas in law relied on:       Incorrect interpretation of Article       Decision is devoid of any basis, as it is the direct consequence
                              78 of Council Regulation No 40/           of the earlier Decision declaring the concentration incompat-
                              94 — Infringement of the appli-           ible with the common market. This earlier Decision being void
                              cant’s right to due process of law        itself, according to the applicant, it cannot serve as basis for
                                                                        the Decision contested in this case. The applicant refers in this
                                                                        respect to the pleas and arguments stated in its application in
                                                                        case T-5/02.