You are on page 1of 2

19.7.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/41

The applicant claims that the Court should: European Communities on 21 May 2003 by Auna Operadores
de Telecomunicaciones, S.A., whose registered office is in
— annul the decision adopted on 13 February 2003 by the Barcelona (Spain) represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation Natalia Lacalle Mangas, lawyers, Retecal Sociedad Operadora
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in case de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, S.A. whose regis-
R 839/2001-4; tered office is in Boecilli, Valladolid (Spain) Euskaltel, S.A.,
whose registered office is in Zamudio, Bizkaia (Spain) Telecable
— order the Defendant to remit the application to its de Asturias, S.A. (a company arising from the merger between
Examination Division for re-examination of Community Telecable de Avilés, S.A., Telecable de Oviedo, S.A. and
Trade Mark number 1864107. Telecable de Gijón, S.A.), whose registered office is in Oviedo
(Spain), R. Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A., whose
registered office is in A Coruña (Spain), and Tenaria, S.A.,
whose registered office is in Cordovilla, Navarra (Spain)
represented by José Mª Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyer.
Pleas in law and main arguments

The trade mark con- The word mark ‘NUR-


cerned: SERYROOM’ — application The applicants claim that the Court should:
No 1864107

Goods or service con- Goods in Class 16, 18, 21, 25 and


— annul the decisions of the Commission of 14 March
cerned: 28 (e.g. books, clothes, plush toys) 2003 in so far as the Commission took the view that the
agreement of 29 January 2003 did not give rise to a new
Decision contested Refusal of registration by the concentration;
before the Board of examiner
Appeal:
— order the Commission to pay the entire costs of the
Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal
proceedings.
Appeal:

Grounds of claim: Misapplication of Article 7(1)(c)


of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com- Pleas in law and main arguments
munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).

The applicants in the present action are contesting the


decisions of 14 March 2003 by which the Commission decided
to take no further action on the complaints lodged by them
against an agreement between the companies Sogecable and
Telefónica on 29 January 2003 which, in their view, gives rise
Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Auna Operadores de
to a new concentration by comparison with the concentration
Telecomunicaciones, S.A., Retecal Sociedad Operadora de
previously notified on 3 July 2002, which was referred to the
Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, S.A. Euskaltel, national authorities by decision of 14 August 2002 ( 1).
S.A., Telecable de Asturias, S.A. (a company arising from
the merger between Telecable de Avilés, S.A., Telecable
de Oviedo, S.A. and Telecable de Gijón, S.A.), R. Cable y
Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A. and Tenaria, S.A. against
Commission of the European Communities According to the applicants, the abovementioned agreement
of 20 January 2003 envisages the possibility, which had
initially been discarded, that Telefónica’s final share of Soge-
(Case T-180/03) cable’s capital (23 %) should be greater than the share held by
the company’s reference partners. The agreement also provides
(2003/C 171/69) that Telefónica will waive certain rights affecting questions of
policy arising from the major shareholding of those assets by
Prisa and Groupe Canal+. On the other hand, Telefónica would
(Language of the case: Spanish) remain a shareholder in Sogecable with effect from the
implementation of the concentration operation. Furthermore,
with the purpose of assisting the integration of their platforms,
Prisa, Groupe Canal+ and Telefónica each agreed to provide
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- Sogecable with a loan with profit participation amounting to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the EUR 50 million repayable in 10 years. It was also agreed
C 171/42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.7.2003

that Sogecable would offer its shareholders the option of Removal from the register of Case T-253/01 (1)
participating in a subordinated loan of EUR 175 million, to be
underwritten in its entirety by Telefónica. Finally, the parties (2003/C 171/70)
agreed that neither of their debts should exceed, prior to the
concentration, EUR 425 million and 705 million respectively, (Language of the case: English)
with a maximum limit of EUR 1 130 million.
By order of 30 April 2003 the President of the Fourth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
In support of their claims, the applicants allege that the ordered the removal from the register of Case T-253/01: UPS
contested decisions contain manifest errors of assessment of Europe NV/SA v Commission of the European Communities.
the facts complained of. They also take the view that the
Commission has been negligent inasmuch as it did not fully (1 ) OJ C 31 of 02.02.2002.
analyse the facts. Moreover, the defendant’s assessment also
infringes the principle of equality in that it diverges from
previous decisions in which it was held that it was necessary
to submit a new notification.
Removal from the register of Case T-24/03 ( 1)

(2003/C 171/71)
Finally, the applicant companies allege that the Commission
misused its powers. (Language of the case: Italian)

By order of 30 April 2003 the President of the First Chamber


( 1) Case T-346/02 Cableuropa and Others (OJ 2003 C 19, p. 40) and of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Case T-347/02 Aunacable and Others (OJ 2003 C 19, p. 40). ordered the removal from the register of Case T-24/03:
Antonio Aresu v Commission of the European Communities.

(1 ) OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.