CELEX: C2001/317/54
Language: en
Date: 2001-11-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-175/01: Action brought on 31 July 2001 by Société des mines de Sacilor Lormines against the Commission of the European Communities

10.11.2001            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 317/27
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:          Action brought on 31 July 2001 by Société des mines de
                                                                       Sacilor Lormines against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                 Communities
—     Annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
      OHIM of 25 April 2001 (Case R641/2000-3);
                                                                                                (Case T-175/01)
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                                (2001/C 317/54)
                                                                                          (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Applicant for the Com-        the applicant                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
munity mark:                                                           European Communities on 31 July 2001 by Sacilor Lormines,
                                                                       a mining company established at Puteaux (France), represented
                                                                       by Geneviève Marty, avocat.
Trade mark applied for:       ‘Silk Cocoon’ for goods in
                              Class 25 (clothing) — Application
                              No 551903                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Holder of the rights in       Redcats SA, Roubaix (France) (for-       —     annul the implied decision of 9 July 2001 by which the
the mark or sign relied       merly La Redoute SA)                           Commission refused to comply with the letter of formal
on in the opposition                                                         notice communicated by the applicant on 9 May 2001;
proceedings:
                                                                       —     annul the express decision of 10 July 2001 by which the
Opposed mark or sign:         the French and international word              Commission refused to comply with the letter of formal
                              mark ‘Cocoon’ for goods in                     notice communicated by the applicant on 9 May 2001;
                              Class 25
                                                                       —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Decision of the Oppo-         dismissal of the opposition
sition Division:
                                                                       Pleas in law and principal arguments
Decision of the Board of      annulment of the Decision of the
Appeal:                       Opposition Division
                                                                       The applicant company in this case, which is also the applicant
                                                                       in Case T-107/01, (1) claims to have been subjected to excessive
Pleas in law relied on:       —    infringement of Article 43(2)       financial pressure by the French authorities in consequence of
                                   of     Council     Regulation       its commencement of the procedures for abandonment and
                                   No 40/94 (1);                       surrender of its mining licences. Because of the French
                                                                       administration’s wish to block it, the said surrender has been
                              —    lack of evidence of genuine         impossible to effect.
                                   use of the opposed marks;
                              —    infringement of Rule 22(2)
                                   of Commission Regulation            Faced with what it claims to be a refusal by the French
                                   No 2868/95 (2);                     administrative courts to protect the rights to which it is entitled
                                                                       under the ECSC Treaty, the applicant lodged a complaint with
                              —    infringement of Rule 22(1)          the Commission against the French State. Since that complaint
                                   of Commission Regulation            was rejected, it brought before the Court of First Instance an
                                   No 2686/95.                         action for failure to act and annulment, which was registered
                                                                       under No T-107/01, referred to above.
                                                                       On this occasion the applicant has addressed a further letter of
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the        formal notice to the Commission asking it to find that France
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                         has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(b) and 86
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December               ECSC. The Commission’s failure to respond has given rise to
    1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the          an implied decision of rejection which is open to challenge.
    Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).                        Further, on 19 July 2001, the applicant received a letter
                                                                       informing it that the Commission considered that Article 4(b)
                                                                       ECSC was not applicable to the case. Those are the decisions
                                                                       which are challenged.
 ---pagebreak--- C 317/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.11.2001
In this case the applicant is bringing an action for failure to act       Pleas in law and main arguments
and annulment.
                                                                          The applicant in the present case objects to her non-inclusion
In support of its claims, the applicant asserts:                          on the list of successful candidates drawn up in the context of
                                                                          the Notice of a selection process for temporary members of
—     infringement of Articles 4(b), 86 and 88 of the ECSC                staff COM/R/A/01/1999 for the management of Research and
      Treaty. It is alleged in this respect that the imposition on        Technological Development programmes.
      ECSC undertakings of charges which, in the case of
      Charbonnages de France, will be directly or indirectly
      financed, whereas the applicant, a private company, will
      have to meet them in the absence of any commercial                  In support of her claims the applicant alleges:
      production, constitutes discrimination contrary to the
      ECSC Treaty;                                                        —     The infringement of the duty to state reasons and the
                                                                                principle of openness;
—     infringement of essential procedural requirements by
      failure to state reasons;                                           —     The infringement of the Selection Process Notice and the
                                                                                rules governing the composition of a selection board;
—     lack of competence, since it does not appear from the
      letter of 10 July 2001 that the decision which it contains
      was formally taken by the Commission and that its                   —     The infringement of the principles of sound adminis-
      signatory was authorised to sign it;                                      tration and equal treatment, in that the identity and the
                                                                                professional and administrative situation of the members
                                                                                of the Selection Committee were disclosed only to certain
—     breach of the principle of sound administration.                          candidates.
(1) Sacilor Lorminesv Commission (not yet published in the Official
    Journal).
                                                                          Action brought on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation
                                                                          against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                                                        Market
Action brought on 3 August 2001 by Sophie Bachotet
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-183/01)
                          (Case T-182/01)
                                                                                                   (2001/C 317/56)
                          (2001/C 317/55)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 August 2001 by Sophie Bachotet,                 European Communities on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation,
resident in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and                  represented by Michael Edenborough, Hogarth Chambers,
Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in                  London (UK).
Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decisions of the Board of Appeal and the
—     annul the decision of the Selection Committee COM/                        Opposition Division in so far as they concern the
      R/A/01/1999 to award the applicant a mark that was not                    application for registration of the applicant’s mark for the
      sufficient to allow her to be included on the reserve list;               goods in Class 5; and as a consequence, order that the
                                                                                Office should allow the applicant’s mark to proceed to
—     order the defendent to pay the costs.                                     registration for the goods in Class 5;