Within this overall project, the objective of the present proposal is to establish a Community Patent Court for first instance Community patent litigation and to provide for the necessary provisions with a view to accommodating the new function of the Court of First Instance as appeal instance against decisions of the Community Patent Court.

A full retrial would reduce the value of the first instance proceedings before the Community Patent Court and risk carrying the trial into the appeal instance before the Court of First Instance which would then risk that it would not be able to properly fulfil its function as an appeal instance, namely to concentrate on specific issues singled out by the parties for more detailed review at a higher level.

By applications lodged at the Court Registry on 6 December 2001, Procter Gamble Company (‘Procter Gamble’) appealed pursuant to Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice against the judgments of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-128/00 Procter Gamble v OHIM (Square tablet with inlay) [2001] ECR II-2785 (‘Case T-128/00’) and Case T‑129/00 Procter Gamble v OHIM (Rectangular tablet with inlay) [2001] ECR II-2793 (‘Case T‑129/00’), (together hereinafter referred to as ‘the judgments under appeal’), by which the Court of First Instance partially dismissed its actions for annulment of the decisions of the Th ...[+++]ird Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (‘OHIM’) of 8 March 2000 (Cases R‑506/1999‑1 and R‑508/1999‑1), which had rejected its appeals against the refusal to register as Community trade marks three-dimensional tablets for washing machines or dishwashers (‘the contested decisions’).

By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 25 April 1997 Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH ('KLE') brought an appeal against the judgment of 25 February 1997 in Joined Cases T-149/94 and T-181/94 Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems v Commission ('the contested judgment'), in which the Court of First Instance dismissed its applications for annulment of Commission Decisions 94/95/Euratom of 4 February 1994 and 94/285/Euratom of 21 February 1994, both relating to a proceeding in application of the second paragraph of Article 53 of the Euratom Treaty.

By application lodged at the Court Registry on 22 March 1997, Union Française de l'Express (Ufex), formerly Syndicat Français de l'Express International (hereinafter 'SFEI'), DHL International and Service CRIE brought an appeal against the judgment of 15 January 1997 in SFEI and Others v Commission [1997] (hereinafter 'the contested judgment'), in which the Court of First Instance dismissed their application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 30 December 1994 rejecting the complaint brought by them under Article 86 of the EC Treaty (hereinafter 'the contested decision').

By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 18 August 1995, Langnese-Iglo GmbH brought an appeal, pursuant to Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 1995 in Case T-7/93 Langnese-Iglo v Commission [1995] ECR II-1533 in which that Court dismissed in part its application for the annulment of Commission Decision 93/406/EEC of 23 December 1992 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty against Langnese-Iglo GmbH (IV/34.072) (hereinafter 'the contested decision').