CELEX: C2003/019/56
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-25 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2002 in Case T-388/00: Institut für Lernsysteme GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier figurative mark containing the acronym ILS — Application for Community word mark ELS — Proof of use of earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Statement of reasons)

C 19/30                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.1.2003
Case T-178/00, J. Fernández Martín, V. Saintot and B. Wägen-                 Economic Area Agreement (Case COMP/JV 40 Canal+/Lagard-
baur, and, in Case T-341/00, V. Saintot, T. Gulliams and                     ère and COMP/JV 47 Canal+/Lagardère/Liberty Media), the
Wägenbaur): Application for annulment of the applicant’s                     Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Compo-
performance appraisal report for 1999, in Case T-178/00, and                 sition), composed of M. Jaeger, President, R. García-Valdecasas,
for annulment of the note of 28 June 2000 from the Director-                 K. Lenaerts, P. Lindh and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio González,
General of the Directorate-General for Information Systems                   Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 Nov-
(DG IS) of the European Central Bank concerning the duties                   ember 2002, in which it:
allocated to the applicant, in Case T-341/00, the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President,
R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; D. Christensen,                   1.     annuls the Commission’s decision of 10 July 2000 amending
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                           the decision of the Commission of 22 June 2000 declaring a
22 October 2002, in which it:                                                       concentration compatible with the common market and with
                                                                                    the European Economic Area Agreement (Case COMP/JV
                                                                                    40 Canal+/Lagardère and COMP/JV 47 Canal+/Lagardère/
1.     Orders that Cases T-178/00 and T-341/00 shall be joined                      Liberty Media);
       for the purposes of the judgment;
2.     Dismisses the applications in Cases T-178/00 and T-341/00;            2.     orders the defendant to pay the costs.
3.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
( 1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 20 November 2002                                                            of 23 October 2002
in Case T-251/00: Lagardère SCA and Canal+ SA v                              in Case T-388/00: Institut für Lernsysteme GmbH v Office
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                          for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                                                    and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Modifi-
cation of a decision declaring a concentration compatible
                                                                             (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier
with the common market — Restrictions directly related
                                                                             figurative mark containing the acronym ILS — Application
and necessary to the implementation of the concentration
                                                                             for Community word mark ELS — Proof of use of earlier
(‘Ancillary restrictions’) — Action for annulment — Chal-
                                                                             mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
lengeable acts — Legal interest in bringing proceedings —
                                                                             and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Relative
    Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Reasons)
                                                                             ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                             No 40/94 — Statement of reasons)
                            (2003/C 19/55)
                                                                                                         (2003/C 19/56)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                  (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-251/00: Lagardère SCA, established in Paris, rep-
resented by A. Winckler, avocat, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, Canal+ SA, established in Paris, represented
by J.-P. de La Laurencie and P.-M. Louis, avocats, against                   In Case T-388/00, Institut für Lernsysteme GmbH, established
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils                      in Hamburg (Germany), represented by J. Schneider and
and F. Lelièvre) — application for annulment of the Com-                     A. Buddee, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
mission’s decision of 10 July 2000 amending the decision of                  v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
the Commission of 22 June 2000 declaring a concentration                     and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, A. di Carlo
compatible with the common market and with the European                      and O. Waelbroeck), the other party to the proceedings before
 ---pagebreak--- 25.1.2003                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 19/31
the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in                      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being ELS                     and Designs) of 31 October 2000 (Joined Cases R 728/1999-
Educational Services, Inc., established in Culver City, California          2 and R 792/1999-2), relating to opposition proceedings
(United States): Action brought against the decision of the                 between Hukla Germany SA and Matratzen Concord GmbH,
Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the                the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 October                     of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
2000 (Case R 074/2000-3), the Court of First Instance (Fourth               D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and                  judgment on 23 October 2002, in which it:
P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2002, in which
it:                                                                         1.     Dismisses the application;
1.     Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office       2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
       for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
       Designs) (OHIM) of 18 October 2000 (Case R 074/2000-
       3) in so far as it relates to the analysis of the likelihood of
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
       confusion between the conflicting marks;
2.     For the rest, dismisses the application;
3.     Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and pay two thirds
       of the costs incurred by the applicant. The applicant shall bear
       one third of its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
                                                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                                  of 20 November 2002
                                                                            in Joined Cases T-79/01 and T-86/01: Robert Bosch GmbH
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                             Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                         of 23 October 2002
                                                                            (Community trade mark — Kit Pro and Kit Super Pro —
in Case T-6/01: Matratzen Concord GmbH v Office for                         Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                                  (EC) No 40/94)
                         Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                                                       (2003/C 19/58)
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Relative grounds
for refusal — Similarity between two trade marks —
Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation                                        (Language of the case: German)
(EC) No 40/94 — Application for a figurative Community
trade mark containing the word ‘Matratzen’ — Earlier word
                     trade mark MATRATZEN)
                            (2003/C 19/57)                                  In Joined Cases T-79/01 and T-86/01, Robert Bosch GmbH,
                                                                            established in Stuttgart (Germany), represented by S. Völker,
                                                                            lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-
                     (Language of the case: German)                         mission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Schneider):
                                                                            Actions brought against two decisions of the First Board of
                                                                            Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                            (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2001 (Cases R 124/
In Case T-6/01, Matratzen Concord GmbH, formerly Matratzen                  2000-1 and R 123/2000-1) on the registration of Kit Pro and
Concord AG, established in Cologne (Germany), represented                   Kit Super Pro respectively as Community trade marks, the
by W.-W. Wodrich, avocat, v Office for Harmonisation in the                 Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:                   M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Chris-
A. von Mühlendahl, G. Schneider and E. Joly): Action brought                tensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                   on 20 November 2002, in which it: