CELEX: C2000/135/28
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-30/00: Action brought on 16 February 2000 by Henkel KGaG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

C 135/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        13.5.2000
— confirm that the Administrative Circular is null and void              The applicant claims that the Court should:
    due to violation of the rights of the Staff Committee, as set
    out in Art. 46 CoE;                                                  — annul the Commission’s decision of 14 December 1999
                                                                              concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 14 of Council
— order the defendant pay the costs of the proceedings, in                    Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case IV/M.1610 — Deut-
    particular the costs of legal representation necessary for                sche Post/trans-o-flex) and cancel the fines imposed
    the applicants, such costs to be fixed and ordered for                    thereby;
    payment by the Court.
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings
                                                                              which the applicant has incurred;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          — order the defendant, in the event that the applicant is
                                                                              successful, to reimburse to the latter the costs of the bank
                                                                              guarantee provided by the applicant by way of security for
The applicants are the Staff Committee of the ECB and three                   the payment of the fines.
members of this committee. They seek the comprehensive
withdrawal and annulment of the ECB’s administrative circular
endorsing an internet usage policy for its staff members.                Pleas in law and principal arguments
In support of its case, the applicants mainly put forward the            In the contested decision, the Commission alleges that the
following pleas in law:                                                  applicant deliberately supplied incorrect and misleading infor-
                                                                         mation concerning the acquisition of control over trans-o-flex
                                                                         Schnell-Lieferdienste GmbH in the notification given by it in a
— By adopting the contested circular, the defendant infringed            proceeding pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 in
    the Staff Committee’s right to consultation as laid down in          Case IV/M.1447 Deutsche Post/trans-o-flex. In addition, the
    Article 46 and 45 of the Conditions of Employment for                applicant allegedly supplied deliberately incorrect information
    Staff of the ECB (CoE). The circular laid down rules and             in response to several requests for information made by the
    regulations concerning working conditions of the staff, as           Commission. For that reason, a fine of EUR 50 000 has been
    related to in Article 45 CoE, and could thereof not be               imposed on the applicant on the basis of Article 14(1)(b) and
    adopted without prior consultation of the staff committee.           (c) of that regulation.
— Moreover, the circular provides for monitoring the staff’s             The applicant contests the decision on the grounds that the
    internet usage. This potentially endangers the right of              defendant applied a legally untenable interpretation to Article
    personality of the individual employees. A prior consul-             14(1)(b) and the first alternative in Article 14(1)(c). In addition,
    tation of the Committee was thereof necessary to safeguard           the Commission failed to exercise its discretion properly. The
    the staffs’ individual rights.                                       information supplied by the applicant was neither incorrect
                                                                         nor misleading, either as regards the notification of the
                                                                         proposed merger or as regards the answers given in response
                                                                         to the request for information.
Action brought on 16 February 2000 by Deutsche Post
AG against the Commission of the European Communi-                       Action brought on 16 February 2000 by Henkel KGaG
                                ties                                     against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                       Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                         (Case T-29/00)
                                                                                                   (Case T-30/00)
                        (2000/C 135/27)                                                           (2000/C 135/28)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
European Communities on 16 February 2000 by Deutsche                     16 February 2000 by Henkel KGaG, of Düsseldorf (Germany),
Post AG, of Bonn (Federal Republic of Germany), represented              represented by Holger Friedrich Wissel and Christian Oster-
by Ferdinand Hermanns, Rechtsanwalt, of Meerbusch, with an               rieth, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Clifford Chance Pünder, Düssel-
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc                dorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                                                   Chambers of Aloyse May, 398 Route d’Esch.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 135/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             (2) order the reimbursement to the applicant of the OHIM
                                                                            appeal fee and order the OHIM to pay the costs of the
— annul the decision adopted on 25 November 1999 by the                     proceedings;
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
    the Internal Market in the appeal proceedings registered            (3) in the alternative, order that the disclaimer ‘Alle vorge-
    under number R 75/1999-3;                                               nannten Waren/Dienstleistungen für eine in München
                                                                            stattfindende Messe’ (‘All the aforementioned goods/ser-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     vices in relation to a trade fair held in Munich’) be annexed
                                                                            to the specification of goods/services.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The trade mark con-           pictorial mark using the colours
cerned:                       white and red — application               The trade mark con-            the denominative and allegedly
                              No 840 132                                cerned:                        pictorial mark ‘electronica’ —
                                                                                                       application No 34587
Goods or service con-         Class 3, washing and dish-wash-
cerned:                       ing detergent                             Goods or service con-          goods and services in Classes 16,
                                                                        cerned:                        35 and 41 (including catalogues
                              Class 42, research in that field                                         relating to, and the organisation
                                                                                                       of, trade fairs in respect of build-
                                                                                                       ing components and construction
                                                                                                       groups in the electronics sector)
Decision contested be-        Refusal of registration by the
fore the Board of Ap-         examiner                                  Decision         contested     Refusal of registration by the
peal:                                                                   before the Board of Ap-        examiner
                                                                        peal:
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94           Grounds of claim:              — incorrect        application    of
                              — Misuse of discretionary pow-                                               Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                  ers                                                                      (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                                       — incorrect        application    of
                                                                                                           Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
                                                                                                           (EC) No 40/94
Action brought on 18 February 2000 by Messe München
GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                        Action brought on 17 February 2000 by Natalia Martinez
                                                                        Páramo and Others against the Commission of the Euro-
                         (Case T-32/00)                                                        pean Communities
                        (2000/C 135/29)                                                          (Case T-33/00)
                                                                                                (2000/C 135/30)
                  (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                             (Language of the case: French)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
18 February 2000 by Messes München GmbH, of Munich                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(Germany), represented by Markus Graf, Rechtsanwalt, of                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Mitscherlich & Partner, Sonnenstrasse 33, Munich.                       European Communities on 17 February 2000 by Natalia
                                                                        Martı́nez Páramo, of Brussels, Anna Sodro, of Sterrebeek,
                                                                        Belgium, Inès Van Lierde, of Beersel, Belgium, Jean-Martial
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Marenne, of Brussels, Ron Moys, of West Malling, the United
                                                                        Kingdom, and Michael Horgan, of Brussels, represented by Eric
(1) annul the decision adopted on 17 December 1999 by the               Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
    Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
    in the Internal Market in appeal No R 177/1998-2;                   Rheinsheim.