You are on page 1of 1

C 192/6 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8.7.

2000

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and of registering the sign with a clarifying disclaimer (dis-
administrative provisions necessary to comply with European claiming any exclusive right in the words ‘company’ and
Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December ‘line’).
1994 on packaging and packaging waste within the prescribed
period, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations There is nothing in the contested decisions to indicate that
under that directive; any consideration was given to the rectification provision
contained in Article 12(b) of Regulation No 40/94. In the
2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. case of the sign ‘Companyline’, this may explain the reason
why the grounds of exclusion laid down in Article 7(1)(b)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999. and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 were assessed in accord-
ance with excessively stringent criteria.
The Court of First Instance wrongly omitted to have regard
to the defendant’s failure, contrary to Article 38(2) and (3)
of Regulation No 40/94, Rule 11(2) of the implementing
Appeal brought on 20 March 2000 by DKV Deutsche regulation and point 8.13.2 of the examination guidelines,
Krankenversicherung AG against the judgment delivered to bring pressure to bear for the inclusion of a disclaimer.
on 12 January 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court In reaching its decision concerning the grounds of
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case exclusion set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 40/94,
T-19/99 between DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung the Court of First Instance wrongly omitted to have regard,
AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal in addition, to the registration practice followed in all the
Market (trade marks and designs) Member states of the Community.
(Case C-104/00 P) — Infringement of substantive law and misuse of discretion-
ary powers: the applicant considers that the contradictions
(2000/C 192/11) and omissions on the part of the defendant clearly and
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 January 2000 objectively show that the decisive aim of the contested
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of decision was to refuse registration of the sign ‘Company-
the European Communities in Case T-19/99 between DKV line’ under any circumstances, in disregard of the legal
Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG and the Office for Harmon- situation and of the defendant’s duty to promote harmonis-
isation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) ation. The purely formal argument as to the co-existence
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European of Community trade mark law in tandem with the national
Communities on 20 March 2000 by DKV Deutsche Kranken- trade mark laws of the Member States is unconvincing,
versicherung AG, represented by Stephan von Petersdorff- since the Office for Harmonisation reached its decision
Campen, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs von Rospatt, von der without any objective determination of the facts, particu-
Osten, Pross, of Kaiser-Friedrich-Ring 56, D-40547 Düsseldorf, larly as regards the decision-making practice followed in
assisted by Alfred Maxton, patent attorney, of Messrs Maxton the United Kingdom, and failed to weigh up and reconcile
& Langmaack, of Goltsteinstrasse 93, D-50968 Cologne, with the interests involved in such a way as to fulfil its obligation
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc to ensure co-existence.
Loesch, of Messrs De Bandt, van Heckel, Lagae & Loesch,
11 Rue Goethe, L-1011 Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:


— set aside the contested decisions; Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of
Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
ties
Pleas in law and main arguments (Case C-114/00)
— Infringement of substantive law, in particular Arti-
cle 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94: excessively (2000/C 192/12)
stringent criteria were applied in assessing the eligibility
for registration of the sign ‘Companyline’. Instead of An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
assessing the overall impression produced by the sign ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
‘Companyline’, the contested decisions merely considered, Communities on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain,
in isolation, the component words ‘company’ and ‘line’ represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado,
together making up the composite sign. The numerous acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
possible meanings said to attach to the words by way the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
of association are not apparent. Having regard to the
The applicant claims that the Court should:
registration practice followed in the Member States of the
Community (including English-speaking Member States) 1) annul the Commission’s decision of 22 December 1999
and the defendant’s decision-making practice in relation to concerning aid to finance operating capital in the agricul-
comparable signs, registration of the sign ‘Companyline’ tural sector in Extremadura;
should not have been refused under Article 7(1)(b) of
Regulation No 40/94. No use was made of the possibility 2) order the defendant institution to pay the costs.