CELEX: C2003/044/60
Language: en
Date: 2003-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-353/02: Action brought on 18 November 2002 by Duarte y Beltrán S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

C 44/30                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         22.2.2003
established in Uelzen, Germany, represented by D. Fouquet,                  Action brought on 18 November 2002 by Duarte y
Lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities                      Beltrán S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
(Agents: V. Kreuschitz and J.L. Buendia Sierra) — application                                   Internal Market (OHIM)
for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to
examine non-notified aid granted by the Federal Republic of
Germany to nuclear power station operators — the Court                                              (Case T-353/02)
of First Instance (First Chamber, Enlarged Composition),
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Azizi. R.M. Moura
Ramos, M. Jaeger and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 27 November 2002, in which it:                                                      (2003/C 44/60)
1.     Held that there was no need to give judgment in the action;
                                                                            (Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with
                                                                            Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Application in Spanish)
2.     Ordered each party to bear its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                            Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 18 November 2002 by Duarte y
                                                                            Beltrán S.A. of Santander (Spain), represented by Natalia Moya
                                                                            Fernández.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        of 6 December 2002                                  —     annul the decision of 6 August 2002 of the Second Board
                                                                                  of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                  Market (OHIM) in Case R-407/2001 and the corrigendum
     in Case T-275/02 R: D v European Investment Bank                             of 16 September 2002 thereto;
(Procedure for interim relief — Extension of probationary                   —     reject Opposition B 35073 in its entirety;
period — Admissibility of the main action — Urgency —
                                 None)
                                                                            —     uphold the claims of the applicant and direct the relevant
                                                                                  Opposition Division of OHIM to proceed to register the
                           (2003/C 44/59)                                         mark in question;
                    (Language of the case: French)                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
In Case T-275/02 R: D, an agent of the European Investment
Bank, residing in Luxembourg, represented by J. Choucroun,                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
European Investment Bank (Agents: J.-P. Minnaert and P. Mou-
sel) — application for suspension of operation of the decisions
of the European Investment Bank first extending the applicant’s             Applicant for the Com-         Duarte y Beltrán S.A.
period of probation and second dismissing him — the                         munity trade mark:
President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on
6 December 2002, in which he:                                               Community trade mark           INTEA — application no 99 747
                                                                            applied for:                   for certain goods in classes 3, 16
                                                                                                           and 21
1.     Dismisses the application for interim measures;
2.     Orders that costs are reserved.                                      Proprietor of the trade        MIRATO S.p.A.
                                                                            mark or sign invoked in
                                                                            the opposition pro-
                                                                            cedure:
 ---pagebreak--- 22.2.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 44/31
Trade mark or        sign   Word marks INTESA (two Italian               The applicant claims that the Court should:
opposed:                    marks, one international mark
                            and a Greek, a Finnish, a Swedish,
                            a UK and an Irish mark), for goods           —     annul Commission Decision C(2002) 3370 dated 9 Sep-
                            in classes 9, 14, 18 and 21, in the                tember 2002;
                            case of one of the two Italian
                            marks, and class 3 in the case of            —     order that the Commission pays the applicant’s costs
                            the others. The opposition was
                            directed against the goods men-
                            tioned in the application as being
                            in classes 3 and 21.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Ruling of the Opposition    opposition partially upheld (risk
Division:                   of confusion in the case of goods
                            of class 3).                                 The contested decision requires the Member States to amend
                                                                         the national marketing authorisations as listed in annex I
Decision of the Board of    appeal dismissed.                            to the Decision. The amendments concern the marketing
Appeal:                                                                  authorisations for Capoten and associated names, to produce
                                                                         a harmonised summary of product characteristics.
Pleas in law:               —      relevance of the phonetic dif-
                                   ference between the conflict-
                                   ing marks                             The applicant represents the various subsidiary companies that
                                                                         are the marketing holders for Capoten throughout the EU.
                            —      conceptual           difference       Capoten, based on the active substance captopril, is a medicinal
                                   between the marks                     product commonly know as an ACE-inhibitor. The product
                                                                         was first authorised in the EU in 1980.
                            —      no risk of confusion between
                                   the conflicting marks.
                                                                         The authorisations for Capoten in the EU were obtained under
                                                                         national marketing authorisation procedures, pursuant to
                                                                         Directive 65/65/EEC ( 1). As a result, some differences existed
                                                                         between the authorisations in the EU Member States as regards
                                                                         the wording and extent of information given. According to the
                                                                         applicant, the therapeutic indications were similar in all
                                                                         Member States.
                                                                         Following patent expiry in the individual Member States,
Action brought on 25 November 2002 by Bristol-Myers
                                                                         generic captopril products have been authorised in those
Squibb International Corporation against the Commission
                                                                         states. The applicant believes that after an attempt to achieve
               of the European Communities
                                                                         mutual recognition in Italy of the authorisation by France of
                                                                         one of those generic products, Italy referred the matter to the
                                                                         Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. The rationale
                       (Case T-354/02)                                   of the referral was that the therapeutic indications in the
                                                                         summary of product characteristics were different and that a
                                                                         harmonisation was necessary for public health reasons. The
                        (2003/C 44/61)                                   contested decision was adopted following the referral.
                 (Language of the case: English)                         In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
                                                                         contested decision is invalid on the ground of lack of
                                                                         competence of the European Agency for the Evaluation of
                                                                         Medicinal Products, the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal
                                                                         Products and the Commission. According to the applicant, the
                                                                         referral to the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                was not in accordance with Article 30 of Directive 2001/83/
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for
European Communities on 25 November 2002 by Bristol-                     human use ( 2). The existence of divergent national decisions
Myers Squibb International Corporation, Brussels, Belgium,               regarding the authorisation of a product is a necessary, but not
represented by David Anderson QC, Kelyn Bacon, Barrister                 a sufficient condition for such a referral. According to the
and Ian Dodds-Smith, Solicitor.                                          applicant, the referring body must additionally identify the