CELEX: C2002/156/54
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-80/02: Action brought on 19 March 2002 by Tetra Laval B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

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.
 ---pagebreak--- C 156/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.6.2002
The applicant further submits that Article 8 (4) of the Merger            Pleas in law and main arguments
Control regulation, which constitutes the legal basis of the
present Decision, is only applicable where a concentration has
been implemented. The applicant states, however, that the                 The Communuity Trade          SECURECLIENT
concentration in this case has not been implemented in any
                                                                          Mark concerned:
way.
                                                                          Product or service:           ‘Computer software to protect
Thirdly, the applicant argues that the modalities for the                                               systems       from    unauthorised
divestiture constitute an infringement of Community law.                                                access’, in International Class 9.
According to the applicant, these modalities are dispro-
portionate and exceed the Commission’s competences under
                                                                          Challenged        Decision    Refusal of registration by the
Article 8(4) of the Merger Control Regulation.
                                                                          before the Board of           Examiner.
                                                                          Appeal:
The applicant finally claims that the Commission has failed to
respect the applicant’s procedural rights, in that the Com-               Grounds submitted:            Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
mission did not respect the applicant’s right to be heard and                                           and (c) of Regulation No 40/94.
relied on information not provided to the applicant.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of
    30.12.1989 p. 1; text republished in OJ L 257 of 21.9.1990,
    p. 13).
                                                                          Action brought on 28 March 2002 by Klausner Nordic
                                                                          Timber GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the
                                                                                              European Communities
Action brought on 20 March 2002 by Check Point
Software Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in                                           (Case T-91/02)
                       the Internal Market
                                                                                                  (2002/C 156/56)
                          (Case T-89/02)
                         (2002/C 156/55)                                                    (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              European Communities on 28 March 2002 by Klausner Nordic
European Communities on 20 March 2002 by Check Point                      Timber GmbH & Co. KG, Wismar (Germany), represented by
Software Limited, represented by Mr Graham Farrington of                  D.O. Reich, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Farrington & Co Solicitors, Reading (United Kingdom).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of the defendant’s First Board of
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 15 January 2002 on
      Appeal of 7 January 2002; and
                                                                                State aid granted by Germany to Klausner Nordic Timber
                                                                                GmbH & Co. KG;
—     order the defendant to remit the application to its
      Examination Division for re-examination of Community
      Trade Mark no. 1744168 (SECURECLIENT).                              —     order the defendant to pay the costs.