Case T-104/01: Action brought on 14 May 2001 by Claudia Oberhauser against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2001-08-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing

11.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 227/23

Action brought on 5 May 2001 by Michael Cwik against
the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 14 May 2001 by Claudia Oberhauser
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-103/01)

(2001/C 227/44)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 May 2001 by Michael Cwik,
residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the Commission’s decision of 13 June 2000
transferring the applicant from the Information, Publi-
cations and Economic Documentation Unit [subsequently
renamed the Euro and EMU Unit (DG ECFIN-04)] to the
General Coordination, Human Resources and Adminis-
in March 2000,
tration Unit [subsequently renamed,
the Coordination, Human Resources, Information and
Administration Unit (DG ECFIN-01)];

— in so far as may be necessary, annul the implicit decision
of the Commission rejecting the complaint submitted by
the applicant on 26 September 2000;

— order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 25 000 by

way of compensation for non-material damage;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant maintains that, by not responding to the
complaint made by him against his transfer, the Commission
failed to discharge its obligation to provide a statement of
reasons for any decision adversely affecting an official, as laid
down in Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations. He also pleads
misuse of powers. According to the applicant, the Commission
exerted real pressure on him, by denying him access to the
information necessary in order to enable him to perform his
information and communication tasks, with a view to isolating
him and harassing him. The applicant further argues that his
functions as an economic and monetary specialist did not
correspond to the work which he was given to do following
his transfer to the ECFIN-01 unit. Lastly, the applicant claims
that, when deciding on his situation, the Commission failed to
comply with its obligation to have regard to the interests
and welfare of officials,
inasmuch as it did not take into
consideration the interests of the service or the interests of the
applicant. According to the applicant, that situation resulted
from a bad personal relationship existing for several years
between him and his hierarchical superiors.

(Case T-104/01)

(2001/C 227/45)

(Language of the case to be determined in accordance with Article
131(2) of the Rules of Procedure Application drafted in German)

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
14 May 2001 by Claudia Oberhauser, residing in Munich
(Germany),
represented by Markus Graf, Rechtsanwalt.
Additional party before the Board of Appeal: Petit Liberto,
S.A., Gerona (Spain).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
28 February 2001 in Case R 757/1999-2;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings,
and order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceed-
ings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market.

Pleas in law and main arguments

for

regis-
Applicant
tration of a Community
trade mark:

Trade mark for which
registration sought:

Owner of the mark put
forward as grounds for
refusal under the oppo-
sition procedure:

Trade mark put forward
as grounds for refusal:

The applicant.

The word mark ‘Fifties’ for goods
in Class 25 (Jeans — Items of
clothing) — Application No
490003.

Petit Liberto, S.A.

The registered Spanish word and
fifties’
pictorial mark
(No 1,723,310)
in
Class 25.

‘miss
for goods

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Refusal of the application.

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the applicant’s com-
plaint.

C 227/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.8.2001

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal ignored
the fact that the conflicting
mark consisted not of the term
‘miss fifties’ but of a word and
pictorial mark, containing a
great variety of word and pic-
torial components.

— There was no conceptual con-
nection between ‘Fifties’ and
‘miss fifties’.

becoming established on 1 April 1985. The applicant conse-
quently pleads infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to
the Staff Regulations and breach of the general provisions for
the implementation of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff
Regulations.

Action brought on 14 May 2001 by Sacilor Lormines S.A.
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-107/01)

(2001/C 227/47)

Action brought on 11 May 2001 by Noé Youssouroum
against the Council of the European Union

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-106/01)

(2001/C 227/46)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 11 May 2001 by Noé Youssouroum, residing
in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique
Peere, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Council’s decision of 8 June 2000 fixing the
calculation of the number of years of pensionable service
with which he is to be credited pursuant to Article 11(2)
of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations following the
transfer to the Community pension scheme of
the
pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry
into service;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant disputes the salary taken into consideration by
the Council when calculating the number of years of pension-
able service to be credited to him following the transfer of the
pension rights acquired by him prior to his entry into service.
According to the applicant, the Council should have taken
into consideration the salary received by him upon his entry
into service on 1 November 1983, initially as a member of the
auxiliary staff and subsequently as a member of the temporary
staff, and not the salary corresponding to his grade upon

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 May 2001 by Sacilor Lormines
S.A., a mining company established at Puteaux (France),
represented by Geneviève Marty, avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the implicit decision of 21 April 2001 by which
the Commission refused to uphold the complaint lodged
by the mining company Sacilor Lormines S.A. and
registered on 21 February 2001 under No SG 01 A/2321;

— in the alternative, annul

the decision of 30 March
2001 by which the Commission refused to uphold
the complaint lodged by the mining company Sacilor
Lormines S.A. and registered on 21 February 2001 under
No SG 01 A/2321;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and principal arguments

By letter of 30 March 2001, the Commission refused to
uphold the applicant’s complaint requesting the opening of a
procedure under Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty against the
French Government. In support of its action for a declaration
of failure to act and for annulment, the applicant pleads
infringement by the Commission of Article 88 of the ECSC
Treaty. According to the applicant, the French Government
has infringed Articles 4(c) and 86 of the ECSC Treaty by
imposing special charges on the applicant. This constitutes, it
claims, an unlawful act against which the Commission should
have taken action in accordance with Article 88 of the ECSC
Treaty. In addition, the applicant pleads, in the context of its
action for annulment, breach of the essential procedural
requirements of the decision of 30 March 2001 and violation
of the principle of sound administration.