CELEX: C2003/289/72
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-345/03: Action brought on 30 September 2003 by European Dynamics S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

C 289/36              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       29.11.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     order the Commission (Enterprise Directorate General) to
                                                                                re-evaluate the tender submitted by European Dynamics;
Applicant for the Com-       Whitbread PLC.
munity mark:                                                              —     order the Commission to pay European Dynamics’ legal
                                                                                and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with
Community mark for           Figurative mark ‘David Lloyd’ —                    this Application.
which application was        Application No 488.999 for
made:                        products in Classes 3, 5, 25, 28,
                             36, 41 and 42.
Holder of the mark or        Applicant                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
sign bringing the oppo-
sition proceedings:
Opposing mark or sign:       No 807.974/9 and No 278.853                  The object of the present case is the annulment of the Decision
                             ‘LLOYD’S’, for goods in Class 25             of the European Commission to reject the applicants bid, filed
                             (clothing and general accessories)           in response to the Call of Tender ENTR/02/055 — CORDIS
                                                                          for the ‘Development and Provision of Services in support of
                                                                          the Community R&D Information Service (CORDIS)’ Lot 2
Decision of the Oppo-        Opposition rejected
                                                                          ‘Development’ (OJ 2002/S 225-178776). This Decision con-
sition Division:
                                                                          cluded that the TRASYS/Intrasoft International Consortium
                                                                          bid was superior to that of the applicant.
Decision of the Board of     Appeal dismissed
Appeal:
Reasons relied on:           Incorrect         application       of       CORDIS, the European Commission’s research and develop-
                             Article 8(1)(b) (likelihood of con-          ment information service, is an informatics tool offering
                             fusion), 8(2)(c) (well known earlier         practical information on the European research programs and
                             mark) and 8(5) Regulation (EC)               funding opportunities, facilitating research results take up
                             No 40/94                                     and and technology transfers, hosting services on European
                                                                          innovation, covering all research and innovation related news
                                                                          developments and providing a central access to European and
                                                                          National contact points
                                                                          In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits that:
Action brought on 30 September 2003 by European
Dynamics S.A. against the Commission of the European                      —     The violation of the principles of transparency and non-
                         Communities                                            discrimination, in as much as the provisions on non-
                                                                                paid running-in periods seriously restrict competition by
                                                                                favouring the incumbent contractor since it has been
                        (Case T-345/03)                                         given major financial advantages by the contracting
                                                                                authority unilateral, which allowed it to submit an offer
                                                                                significantly cheaper that any other competitor. Besides,
                        (2003/C 289/72)                                         the time-limit for providing information about the role
                                                                                of Autonomy in CORDIS (Enterprise Directorate General
                  (Language of the case: English)                               addresses such information just four weeks before the
                                                                                tender submission deadline) has given a big advantage to
                                                                                the TRASYS/Intrasoft consortium in relation to other
                                                                                Lot 2 tenderers. Additionally, ensuring the call for tender
                                                                                procedure, all bidders -except the incumbent contractor
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       — were prevented from having access to a number of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      highly critical technical information on the actual status
European Communities on 30 September 2003 by European                           of the CORDIS projects and particularly on the CORDIS
Dynamics S.A., Athens, (Greece), represented by S. Pappas,                      DATABASE SERVICE. Moreover, the Commission
lawyer.                                                                         declined to communicate to all tenderers significant and
                                                                                useful details on the HW/SW, scripts, technology and
                                                                                processes currently in use for operating the CORDIS
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     database services, while, at the same time, it asked
                                                                                the tenderers to specify what part of that ‘unknown’
—     annul the Commission’s (Enterprise Directorate General)                   equipment is to be taken over, whilst all this information
      decision to evaluate European Dynamics’ tender as not                     was fully available to TRASYS/Intrasoft right from the
      successful;                                                               beginning.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.11.2003          EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 289/37
—   The Commission’s assessments are based on wrong or                   of Prince2. All other assessments are not supported by
    unfounded assumptions. Contrary to what has been                     the data of the file.
    stated by the Commission, the proposed platform by the
    applicant was explained in great detail. Concretely, the
    Commission wrongly assumed that the Service Delivery            The applicant also invokes a violation of the duty of motivation
    Framework was not ITIL and that there was no mention            of the legal acts.