CELEX: C2002/109/101
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-22/02: Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd against the Commission of the European Communities

C 109/52               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.5.2002
Action brought on 30 January 2002 by Interquell GmbH                     Grounds of claim:             —     incorrect application of
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                         Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                               (EC) No 40/94 (1);
                                                                                                       —     infringement of Regulation
                          (Case T-20/02)                                                                     (EC) No 40/94 on account
                                                                                                             of failure to comply with
                                                                                                             Article 12 thereof.
                        (2002/C 109/100)
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)           Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
                       been drafted: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                   Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Sumitomo Chemi-
30 January 2002 by Interquell GmbH, of Wehringen (Germ-                  cal Co., Ltd against the Commission of the European
any), represented by G.J. Hodapp, lawyer. A further party to                                        Communities
the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was SCA Nutrition
Ltd, of Lichfield (United Kingdom).                                                                (Case T-22/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                      (2002/C 109/101)
—     annul Decision R 264/2002-2 adopted on 27 November                                   (Language of the case: English)
      2001 by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for
      Harmonisation in the Internal Market;
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 7 February 2002 by Sumitomo
                                                                         Chemical Co., Ltd, represented by Mr Martin Klusmann
                                                                         and Ms Vanessa Turner of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Düsseldorf (Germany).
Applicant for the Com-         the applicant                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
munity trade mark:
                                                                         —     annul the defendant’s Decision C(2001)3695-final of
The Community trade            the pictorial mark ‘HAPPY DOG’                  21 November 2001 in Case No. COMP/E-1/37.512 —
mark applied for:              for goods in Class 31 (feeding-                 Vitamins as far as Sumitomo Chemical Company is
                               stuffs for dogs) — application                  concerned
                               No 290577
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Proprietor of the trade-       SCA Nutrition Ltd
mark right opposed in
the opposition proceed-
ings:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Trade-mark            right    the United Kingdom verbal and
opposed:                       pictorial marks ‘HAPPIDOG’ for            The contested Decision in the present case is the same as in
                               goods in Class 31 (feedingstuffs          case T-15/02 BASF/Commission (1).
                               for dogs)
Decision of the Oppo-          rejection of the trade mark               In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits that:
sition Division:               application
                                                                         —     The Commission was time-barred from taking the prohib-
Decision of the Board of       rejection of the applicant’s appeal             ition Decision. Contrary to the defendant’s view that the
Appeal:                                                                        rules on limitation periods have no bearing on the
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/53
      entitlement of the defendant to investigate cartel cases and        Chemicals Co. Ltd., represented by Mr. Martin Klusmann
      to adopt prohibition Decisions, the rules on limitation             and Ms Vanessa Turner of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer,
      in Regulation No. 2988/74 (2) should be considered                  Düsseldorf (Germany).
      applicable to declaratory prohibition decisions.
—     The adoption of a prohibition decision is time-barred               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      under general principles of Community Law. It is stated
      in this regard that where there is no doubt that the alleged        —     annul the Defendant’s Decision C(2001)3695 final of
      conduct was terminated more than five years before an                     21 November 2001 in Case No. COMP/E-1/37.512 —
      investigation was opened, there is no need and no                         Vitamins, so far as Sumika Fine Chemicals Co. Ltd. is
      justification for a declaratory decision, because there is                concerned;
      no place for a cease and desist order, as contained in
      Article 2 of the contested Decision, or any other form of           —     order the Defendant to pay the costs.
      penalty to be imposed on the applicant by the defendant.
      Alternatively, the rationale for limitation periods in the
      European Union is that after a certain period of time it is
      in the interest of the proper functioning of the legal              Pleas in law and main arguments
      system that infringements of the law should no longer be
      investigated or lead to any form of ‘punishment’ of the
      party concerned.                                                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied
                                                                          upon in Case T-22/02 (Sumitomo Chemical/Commission, not
                                                                          yet published in the OJ).
—     The defendant was not competent within the meaning of
      the second paragraph of Article 230 EC to adopt the
      contested Decision, as it thereby exceeded its powers
      under the Treaty and Regulation No. 17/62. The defend-
      ant is not empowered by Article 3 of Regulation No. 17,
      or by any other provision, to adopt a declaratory decision
      where the infringement has already been terminated
      outside the limitation period provided for in Article 1 of          Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Maddalena Lebe-
      Regulation No. 2988/74.                                             def-Caponi against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                    Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-24/02)
                                                                                                 (2002/C 109/103)
(1) Notice not yet published in the OJ.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 of 26 November 1974
    concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the enforcement                         (Language of the case: French)
    of actions under the rules of the European Economic Community
    relating to transport and competition (OJ L 319, 29.11.1974,
    p. 1).
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 7 February 2002 by Maddalena
                                                                          Lebedef-Caponi, residing at Senningerberg (Grand Duchy of
                                                                          Luxembourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Sumika Fine
Chemicals Co. Ltd. against the Commission of the Euro-                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        pean Communities
                                                                          —     annul the express decision No 40263 of 6 November
                           (Case T-23/02)                                       2001 by which the appointing authority replied to the
                                                                                applicant’s complaint No 334/01 of 18 July 2001 by
                                                                                fixing the compensation for the non-material damage
                         (2002/C 109/102)                                       suffered by her in the sum of 1 500 euros;
                    (Language of the case: English)                       —     award the applicant the sum of BEF 800 000, assessed as
                                                                                amounting now to the sum of BEF 1 000 000, by way of
                                                                                compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a
                                                                                result of the lateness in drawing up her staff report
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       (placed belatedly in her personal file) for the period 1993-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      1995 and the lateness in drawing up her staff reports for
European Communities on 7 February 2002 by Sumika Fine                          the periods 1995-1997 and 1997-1999;