CELEX: C2002/289/54
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-280/02: Action brought on 15 September 2002 by J.J. Pikaart and Others against Commission of the European Communities

23.11.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 289/29
of the European Communities on 10 September 2002 by                       Communities on 15 September 2002 by J.J. Pikaart and
Dyson Limited, Malmesbury, Wiltshire (United Kingdom),                    Others, represented by M.J. van Dam and R.D. Ouwerling.
represented by D. Barron, C. Jones and C. Loweth, Lawyers.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1) Annul the Decision of the European Commission of
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the                      16 July 2002 (E1/L 02157 D(2002) 11796;
      Office of 2 July 2002 (Case R655/2001-1),
—     remit the decision to the Board for further consideration           (2) Order the defendants to pay the costs.
      in respect of the other absolute grounds of refusal raised
      by the examiner under Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of
      Regulation No 40/94,
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                          The applicants own the inland waterway vessel Factotum. In
                                                                          1997 the mid and bow sections of the Factotum were replaced.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           At the same time the tonnage of the Factotum was increased
                                                                          through lengthening the mid and bow sections. The old mid
                                                                          and bow sections were left unused by the applicants. The
Trade Mark:                   ‘Feature of goods’ consisting of            original plans to make this segment into a pusher craft were
                              ‘a transparent bin or collection            not put into effect because of a possible old-for-new obligation
                              chamber forming part of an exter-           pursuant to Regulation No 1101/89 ( 1).
                              nal surface of a vacuum cleaner’
                              — Application No 522144
                                                                          However, the Netherlands Fund imposed a levy on the
Goods and services:           ‘Apparatus for cleaning, polishing
                              and shampooing floors and car-              applicants pursuant to the old-for-new rule in Regu-
                              pets; vacuum cleaners; carpet               lation 1101/89. According to the applicants, the Factotum
                                                                          was hereby regarded as a newly constructed motor-vessel.
                              shampooers; floor polishers; parts
                              and fittings for all the aforesaid
                              goods’ in Class 7 of the Nice
                              classification).                            The applicants then asked the Commission how Article 8
                                                                          of Regulation 1101/89 should be applied in the specific
Decision       challenged     Refusal by the examiner to regis-           circumstances. The applicants’ present action contests the
before the Board of           ter.                                        interpretation given by the Commission.
Appeal:
Pleas in law:                 Misinterpretation                   of      The applicants submit that the alterations to the Factotum did
                              Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No            not constitute a newly constructed vessel or any of the other
                              40/94.                                      cases set out in Article 8 of Regulation 1101/89. According to
                                                                          the applicants, the replacement of the section of the Factotum
                                                                          increases the total capacity of inland waterway vessels only in
                                                                          so far as it lengthens the Factotum. In other words, the old-
                                                                          for-new obligations should have been limited to the additional
                                                                          tonnage.
Action brought on 15 September 2002 by J.J. Pikaart and                   The applicants also submit that if the old mid and bow section
Others against Commission of the European Communities                     were to be converted to a pusher vessel, that is no reason to
                                                                          impose old-for-new obligation in respect of the motor-vessel
                                                                          tonnage of the Factotum. The applicants submit that this
                        (Case T-280/02)
                                                                          extension concerns pusher vessel tonnage for which the old-
                                                                          for-new obligations are less severe than those for motor-vessel
                        (2002/C 289/54)                                   tonnage.
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 of 27 April 1989 on
                                                                               structural improvements in inland waterway transport (OJ L 116,
                                                                               p. 25).
An action against Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European