CELEX: C2003/158/50
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-158/03: Action brought on 9 May 2003 by Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

5.7.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 158/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Proprietor of mark or         The applicant
                                                                          sign cited in the oppo-
—     annul the Contested Decision in whole or in part,                   sition proceedings:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of this Case and              Mark or sign cited in         Word mark ‘ARTEX’ registered in
      of Case T-276/02.                                                   opposition:                   France, Portugal and the Benelux
                                                                                                        for goods in Class 5
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition upheld
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the
The applicant in the present case is the same association as in
                                                                          Appeal:                       Opposition Division and dis-
case T-276/02, Forum against Commission (1). The applicant
                                                                                                        missal of the appeal
challenges the final decision relating to the same Belgian State
Aid measure which was, as far as the decision to open the                 Pleas in law:                 Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
procedure as foreseen by Article 88(2) of the Treaty was                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
involved, the object of that case. The grounds and main                                                 lihood of confusion)
arguments are those submitted in that aforementioned case.
( 1) OJEC C 289, 23.11.02, p. 28.
                                                                          Action brought on 9 May 2003 by Industrias Químicas
                                                                          del Vallés, S.A. against Commission of the European
                                                                                                    Communities
Action brought on 2 May 2003 by Biofarma against the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                                            (Case T-158/03)
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                                  (2003/C 158/50)
                        (Case T-154/03)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
                        (2003/C 158/49)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 9 May 2003 by Industrias Quí-
                                                                          micas del Vallés, S.A., whose registered office is in Mollet del
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            Vallés (Barcelona, Spain), represented by Cani Fernández
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                Vicién, Paloma González-Espejo and Julio Sabater Marotias,
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                lawyers.
2 May 2003 by Biofarma, represented by Antonia Ruiz López
and Víctor Gil Vega, lawyers.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     annul Commission Decision 2003/308/EC of 2 May
                                                                                2003,
—     annul the decision of the OHIM (Third Board of Appeal)
      of 5 February 2003 and declare that there is a likelihood           —     order the European Commission to pay all the costs,
      of confusion between the trade marks ARTEX and                            including those incurred for the purposes of making an
      ALREX, which designate similar goods.                                     application for interim relief.
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          This action is directed against Commission Decision 2003/
                                                                          308/EC of 2 May 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of
Applicant for Com-             Bausch & Lomb Pharmaceuticals              metalaxyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the
munity trade mark:             Inc.                                       withdrawal of authorisations for plant-protection products
                                                                          containing this active substance (1).
Community trade mark           Word mark ‘ALREX’ — Appli-
sought:                        cation No 789461 for goods in
                               Class 5 (ophthalmological prod-            In support of its claims, the applicant company relies on the
                               ucts)                                      following pleas in law and main arguments:
 ---pagebreak--- C 158/28                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            5.7.2003
—      Infringement of Directive 91/414 (2) and Regulation                         Removal from the register of Case T-297/00 (1)
       No 3600/92 ( 3), in so far as the Commission requires that
       each of the notifying parties submit a complete dossier                                     (2003/C 158/51)
       when presenting a notification collectively with other
       notifiers of active substances and send such complete                                  (Language of the case: French)
       dossier to the defendant within the time-limit referred to
       in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 3600/92. It is also
       contrary to that provision for the defendant institution to
                                                                           By order of 2 April 2003 the President of the First Chamber,
       assume that the applicant is not able to submit data
                                                                           Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
       relating to the evaluation of metalaxyl. The applicant
                                                                           European Communities ordered the removal from the register
       company therefore takes the view that the contested
                                                                           of Case T-297/00: Company Claude-Anne de Solène v Council
       decision contradicts the interpretation made by the
                                                                           of the European Union and Commission of the European
       Commission itself concerning use of the studies provided
                                                                           Communities.
       by Syngenta in the drawing up of the report by the
       rapporteur Member State.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 355, 09.12.2000.
—      Infringement of the principle of proportionality. In this
       regard, the applicant would point out, in particular, the
       fact that the effect of the contested decision consists in
       excluding it from the European market when its scientific
       analysis has not even been completed.
                                                                                   Removal from the register of Case T-159/01 (1)
—      Misuse of powers, inasmuch as, in the applicant’s view,
       the purpose of the Commission is none other than to
       favour an undertaking which is its direct competitor.                                       (2003/C 158/52)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ 2003 L 113, p. 8.
( 2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
     placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991
     L 230, p. 1).                                                         By order of 31 March 2003 the Court of        First Instance of the
( 3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992            European Communities (Sole Judge: R.           M. Moura Ramos)
     laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first    ordered the removal from the register          of Case T-159/01:
     stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8 (2) of        Christopher Wilkinson v Commission of         the European Com-
     Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant          munities.
     protection products on the market (OJ 1992 L 366, p. 10).
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 275, 29.09.2001.