You are on page 1of 2

7.6.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/31

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

of 10 March 2003 of 26 March 2003

in Case T-85/03 R: Government of the Cayman Islands v


in Case T-303/01: Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro v Commission of the European Communities
Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
(Procedure for interim relief — Overseas countries and
territories — Request for establishment of a partnership
(Project for the construction of the Madrid-Barcelona-French working party — Alleged decision to refuse — Partial
border high-speed line — Financial assistance from the inadmissibility of heads of relief sought — Admissibility of
Cohesion Fund — Expected impact of the route on the main action — Urgency — Absence)
environs of the Soto de Aguilar protected area — Com-
mission refusal to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil
obligations — Action for annulment — Natural and legal (2003/C 135/51)
persons — Act directly affecting them — Inadmissibility)
(Language of the case: English)

(2003/C 135/50)

In Case T-85/03 R: Government of the Cayman Islands,


represented by E. Sharpston, QC, against Commission of the
(Language of the case: Spanish) European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and B. Eggers) —
application for interim measures in respect of the ongoing
legislative consideration of the Commission’s ‘Proposal for a
Council directive to ensure effective taxation of savings income
in the form of interest payments within the Community’
(COM/2001/0400 final, OJ 2001 C 270 E, p. 259), submitted
In Case T-303/01: Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro, established on 18 July 2001 and based on Article 94 EC — the President
in Zaragoza (Spain), represented by J. Ariño Barcelona, lawyer, of the Court of First Instance has made an order on 26 March
against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
G. Valero Jordana), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
R. Silva de Lapuerta) — application for annulment of the
decision of the Commission of 13 July 2001 refusing to 1. The application is dismissed;
initiate proceedings for a finding of failure to fulfil obligations
under Article 226 EC against the Kingdom of Spain and 2. Costs are reserved.
seeking the adoption of measures intended to prevent the
Spanish authorities from implementing their decision of
17 March 1999 concerning the route to be followed by the
Madrid-Barcelona-French border high-speed line — the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood,
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 10 March 2003, the operative part of which
is as follows: Action brought on 4 February 2003 by Osotspa Co., Ltd.
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
(Case T-33/03)
2. The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred
by the Commission. (2003/C 135/52)

3. The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs. (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
submitted: German)

( 1) OJ 2002 C 44.

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal


Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
C 135/32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.6.2003

4 February 2003 by Osotspa Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand, Pleas in law: The applicant claims that a mini-
represented by C. Gassauer-Fleissner, lawyer, with an address mal degree of similarity between
for service in Luxembourg. Distribution & Marketing GmbH, the marks is sufficient for a find-
Salzburg, Austria, was also a party to the proceedings before ing that there is a likelihood of
the Board of Appeal. confusion because the goods are
identical

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— vary the contested decision of the Third Board of Appeal


of 27 November 2002 in appeal proceedings No R 296/
2002-3 so as to allow the applicant’s opposition to the Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Suproco N.V.
against the Commission of the European Communities
application for registration of the mark ‘Hai’ filed by
Distribution & Marketing GmbH on 10 September 1997
and refuse the application for registration; (Case T-101/03)

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the Office for (2003/C 135/53)
Harmonisation in the Internal Market;
(Language of the case: Dutch)

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-


ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 March 2003 by Suproco
N.V., having its registered office in Curação, represented by
Pleas in law and main arguments M.M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder.

The applicant claims that the Court should:


Applicant for Com- Distribution & Marketing GmbH
munity trade mark: — declare its action to be admissible;

— annul the European Commission decision of 10 January


Community trade mark The word mark ‘Hai’ for goods 2003 addressed to the Member States and refusing to
sought: and services in Classes 5, 32, 33, grant a derogation from Council Decision 2001/822/EC
35 and 42 (inter alia, vitamin in regard to the rules of origin for sugar from the
preparations, fruit juices, Netherlands Antilles;
alcoholic beverages, catering for
guests) (application No 628172) — order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Proprietor of mark or The applicant, Osotspa Co., Ltd.


sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings: Pleas in law and main arguments

Mark or sign cited in The Community figurative mark The applicant is a sugar-processing undertaking established in
opposition: No 168427 and the national figu- the Netherlands Antilles. It imported, inter alia, sugar from a
rative mark ‘Shark’ for goods in cane-sugar supplier in Columbia. It processed this sugar into
Class 32 (non-alcoholic drinks, brown granulated sugar and sugar lumps and re-exported it to
syrups and other preparations for the EC pursuant to Article 3 of Annex II and Appendix 2 to
making beverages) Annex II to Decision 91/482/EEC (1). On the basis of those
rules the applicant’s products were treated as being products
of OCT origin.
Decision of the Oppo- Rejection of the applicant’s oppo-
sition Division: sition
Similar rules have also been adopted in Article 4 of Annex III
and Appendix 2 ( 2) to Annex III to Decision 2001/822
Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal (the OCT Decision) ( 3), which replaces Decision 91/482/EEC.
Appeal: Article 5(1)(g) of Annex III to the present OCT Decision,