CELEX: C2003/184/86
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-164/03: Action brought on 8 May 2003 by Ampafrance SA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

C 184/38               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          2.8.2003
—     order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                            8 May 2003 by Ampafrance SA, established in Cholet (France),
                                                                            represented by C. Bercial Arias, lawyer.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Johnson & Johnson GmbH was also a party to the proceedings
                                                                            before the First Board of Appeal.
The applicant is a truck and bus manufacturer. By means of
the contested decisions, the Commission refused to enforce an               The applicant claims that the Court should:
immediate divestiture of the shareholding of AB Volvo in                    —     annul or vary those parts of the decision given by the
Scania AB and refused to communicate to the applicant the                         First Board of Appeal of the defendant on 4 March 2003
confidential terms of the divestiture of the Shareholding of AB                   in Case R 220/2002-1 in which the applicant's claims
Volvo in Scania AB as stipulated in the AB Volvo/Renault                          were not upheld and, consequently, rule that ‘babies'
Véhicule Industriel (VI) decision. On the basis of these                          napkins of absorbent cotton’ are not similar to the goods
Commission Decisions, AB Volvo has been able to maintain a                        covered by the German trade mark ‘bebe’
dominant position vis-à-vis Scania for almost 4 years.                            (No 1 168 346), that there are no similarities liable to
                                                                                  lead to a likelihood of confusion between the marks
In support of its claim, the applicant invokes Articles 8 (4), 6                  ‘bebe’ and ‘monBeBé’ (logo) and that Community trade
and 18(3) of the Merger Regulation (1).                                           mark application No 297 309 is to be registered in its
                                                                                  entirety;
According to the applicant, the Commission infringed Article 8              —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
(4) of the Merger Regulation by refusing to enforce an
immediate divestiture at the applicant's request. The applicant             Pleas in law and main arguments
argues that the minority shareholding of AB Volvo constitutes
de jure and de facto, sole or joint control with investor AB                Applicant for Community        Ampafrance SA
over Scania which should have been stopped by the Commis-                   trade mark:
sion.
Furthermore, the applicant invokes Article 6 of the Merger
Regulation. The applicant submits that the Commission should                Community       trade  mark    Mixed word and figurative mark
have revoked the Volvo/Renault decision and reviewed the                    sought:                        ‘monbebé’      —      Application
terms of the divestiture. The applicant alleges that Volvo                                                 No 297 309, lodged in respect
infringed its undertaking pertaining to the divestiture when                                               of goods in Classes 3, 5, 8, 10,
participating in the decision-making process of Scania.                                                    11, 12, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25
                                                                                                           and 28.
The applicant also claims that the Commission should have
disclosed to Scania the information relating to the confidential
approved terms of the divestiture as stipulated in the Volvo/               Proprietor of mark or sign     Johnson & Johnson GmbH
Renault (VI) decision. The applicant claims to be a directly                cited in the opposition pro-
involved party to whom the Commission should have granted                   ceedings:
access to the information contained in the Volvo/Renault
decision.
Finally, the applicant argues that any prolongation for the                 Mark or sign cited in op-      National trade mark ‘bebe’, re-
accomplishment of the divestiture from 2003 to 2004 is not                  position:                      gistered for goods in Classes 3,
automatic but should have been assessed and justified by the                                               16 and 24.
Commission.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21.12.1989 on the                Decision of the Opposition     Rejection of the opposition.
    control of concentrations between undertakings (JO L 257, p. 13).       Division:
                                                                            Decision of the Board of       Partial annulment of the deci-
                                                                            Appeal:                        sion of the Opposition Division
Action brought on 8 May 2003 by Ampafrance SA against                                                      and partial rejection of the ap-
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                                        plication for registration as re-
               (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                            gards certain goods such as
                                                                                                           soaps etc; dismissal of the re-
                                                                                                           mainder of the appeal
                           (Case T-164/03)
                           (2003/C 184/86)
                                                                            Pleas in law:                  Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                         of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                                           (likelihood of confusion).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before