CELEX: C2001/186/20
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-86/01: Action brought on 11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

30.6.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 186/13
—     in the alternative: review the amounts accounted for in          Action brought on 11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH
      the decision of 21 February 2001, reducing the amount            against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      not attributed to IAMA Consulting S.r.l., to its detriment,                    Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      in each case in an amount not less than LIT 600 000 000
      (six hundred million), the exact amount to be quantified
      according to prudent and fair assessment;                                                 (Case T-86/01)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                   (2001/C 186/20)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                          (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The present action has been brought against the measures               Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
adopted by the Commission on 12 February 2001 (INFSO-                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
3/dec0033FM/D(01)240047) and 21 February 2001 (INFO-                   11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH, of Stuttgart (Germany),
R2/feb0020RW/D(01)400027) respectively, with regard to                 represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, with an address
the eligibility of expenses incurred by IAMA International             for service in Luxembourg.
Management Advisors S.r.l. and by the applicant in the context
of ESPRIT projects REGIS 22337 and REFIAG 23200, in so
far as the expenses incurred by the applicant in the periods           The applicant claims that the Court should:
1 May 1996 to 31 October 1997 (Project REGIS 22337) and
1 November 1996 to 31 October 1997 (Project REFIAG                     —     annul the decision adopted on 31 January 2001 by the
23200) are not recognised as eligible.                                       First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                             the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in the
                                                                             appeal proceedings registered under number
In support of its arguments, the applicant claims:                           R 123/2000-1 concerning Community trade mark appli-
                                                                             cation No 761 304;
—     Infringement and misapplication of Articles 1362, 1366,
      1368, 1370, 1374 and 1375 of the Italian Civil Code;             —     order the defendant Office to pay the costs.
—     Misuse of powers inasmuch as the facts were misassessed
      and misrepresented. The applicant submits in this respect        Pleas in law and main arguments
      that the Commission regards the applicant undertaking
      as separate and autonomous from the other undertaking
      mentioned above, whereas they form part of the IAMA              Applicant for the Com-        the applicant
      group, of which both are representative. Consequently,           munity trade mark:
      the defendant appears to have accorded decisive import-
      ance to the formal matter of IAMA Consulting S.r.l.
                                                                       The trade mark con-           the verbal mark ‘Kit Super Pro’
      replacing IAMA International S.r.l., regarding it as suc-
                                                                       cerned:
      cessor to the relationship originally entered into with
      IAMA International S.r.l. only since 1 November 1997.
                                                                       Goods or service con-         goods and services in Class 12
                                                                       cerned:                       (parts for repairing drum brakes
—     Misuse of powers inasmuch as the measures are illogical,                                       in land vehicles)
      contradictory and do not provide an adequate statement
      of reasons. The applicant submits in this respect that, in
      view of the fact that the two aforementioned undertakings        Decision        contested     refusal of the application for regis-
      belong to the same group, of which the applicant is the          before the Board of           tration of the mark
      operational undertaking in relation to the group leader          Appeal:
      IAMA International S.r.l., and that contracts were per-
      formed in good time, it is difficult to see the objective        Grounds of claim:             — The mark is not descriptive
      pursued by the Commission in penalising the IAMA                                                   within the meaning of
      group by not finding eligible the expenses incurred by                                             Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
      the applicant in the performance of contracts which,                                               (EC) No 40/94 (1).
      moreover, made it possible for the prescribed objectives
                                                                                                     — There is no need to keep the
      to be fully attained.
                                                                                                         mark free.
                                                                                                     — The mark possesses the mini-
                                                                                                         mum level of distinctiveness
                                                                                                         necessary for trade-mark pro-
                                                                                                         tection.
 ---pagebreak--- C 186/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30.6.2001
                              — Registration of the mark in             Pleas in law and principal arguments
                                  question would accord with
                                  the other aspects of the
                                  decision-making practice fol-         The applicant pleads, with reference to the judgment in
                                  lowed by the Boards of                Antillean Rice Mills, that safeguard measures must be of a
                                  Appeal.                               temporary nature. It maintains that no assessment whatever
                                                                        has been carried out, let alone any examination of the need for
                              — Infringement,         alternatively     an extension.
                                  misinterpretation,             of
                                  Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regu-
                                  lation No 40/94.                      For the rest, the pleas in law and main arguments are analogous
                                                                        to those in Cases T-94/00 and T-332/00.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                          (1) What is meant is Commission Regulation (EC) No 396/2001 of
                                                                            27 February 2001 providing for the continued application of
                                                                            safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries and
                                                                            territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of
                                                                            origin for the period 1 March to 30 June 2001 (OJ L 58 of
                                                                            28.2.2001, p. 13).
Action brought on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                        Action brought on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A. against
                          (Case T-87/01)                                       the Commission of the European Communities
                         (2001/C 186/21)                                                            (Case T-88/01)
                                                                                                   (2001/C 186/22)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV, established at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
G. van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch.              European Communities on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A.,
                                                                        established in Madrid, represented by José Luis Baró Fuentes,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Miguel Angel Gómez de Liaño y Botella and Fernando
                                                                        Rodrı́guez Carretero, abogados.
—    annul Regulation No 376/2001 (1);
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered
     by the applicant as a result of the fact that, since 1 March       —     annul Article 1 of the decision of 19 July 2000, inasmuch
     2001, the importation of the products referred to in                     as it establishes that the provision of guarantees amount-
     Regulation No 376/2001 has been prevented or restricted                  ing to EUR 35,80 million does not constitute State aid
     in consequence of that regulation, and order that the                    within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty;
     parties should seek to reach agreement on the extent of
     the damage suffered by the applicant, and that, if no such         —     annul Article 2 of the decision, inasmuch as it establishes
     agreement is reached, the proceedings are to be resumed                  that the aid granted by Austria to LLG through the
     within a time-limit to be specified by the Court, with a                 provision of a guarantee amounting to EUR 14,5 million
     view to determining the quantum of the damage, and                       by WiBAG complies with the guarantee guidelines
     further order the Community to pay the damages pro-                      approved by the Commission under number No 542/95;
     visionally quantified and yet to be quantified, alternatively
     to pay such compensation as the Court may deem fair                —     annul Article 3 of the decision, inasmuch as it establishes
     and equitable, together with interest thereon at the rate                that the individual aid which Austria has granted in the
     of 8 % per annum from the date of the application until                  form of aid amounting to EUR 0,4 million for land
     payment in full;                                                         acquisition and in the form of equity capital amounting
                                                                              to EUR 21,8 million is compatible with the common
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   market;