Case T-174/01: Action brought on 30 July 2001 by Ms Jean M. Goulbourn against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2001-11-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing industry, trade-mark law

C 317/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.11.2001

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

The applicant claims that the Court should:

of 6 July 2001

— Annul the contested act;

in Case T-375/00 Danielle Dubigh and Tamara Zaur-Gora
v Commission of the European Communities (1)

— Declare her to be entitled to obtain a survivor’s pension;

(Officials — Replacement staff — Members of the auxiliary
staff — Claim to classification as a member of the temporary
staff of the European Communities — Action in part lacking
in any legal basis and in part inadmissible)

— Set the amount of that pension at 200 000 BEF a month;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

(2001/C 317/51)

(Language of the case: French)

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Commission of

In Case T-375/00: Danielle Dubigh, a member of the auxiliary
staff of
the European Communities,
residing in Brussels, and Tamara Zaur-Gora, also a member
of the auxiliary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing in Lodelinsart (Belgium), represented
by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser) —
application for the annulment of the Commission decisions
of 12 January 2000 rejecting the applicants’ requests of
24 September 1999 for regularisation of their administrative
situation by recognising them as members of the temporary
staff of the European Communities — the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, Presi-
dent, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has made an order on 6 July 2001, the operative part of which
is as follows:

1.

2.

The application is dismissed.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.

The applicant, divorced from a former member of the Court
of Justice, now deceased, is challenging the defendant’s refusal
to grant her a survivor’s pension. That decision is based on the
alleged absence of any maintenance agreement concluded after
the divorce was granted and on the fact that a survivor’s
pension is conditional upon a right to maintenance.

In support of her claims, the applicant maintains that the
defendant, having regard to the circumstances of the case, was
not entitled to consider that the two sworn declarations she
produced in order to establish the existence and amount of the
maintenance agreement with her ex-husband were insufficient.

Action brought on 30 July 2001 by Ms Jean M. Goulbourn
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Action brought on 26 July 2001 by M against the Court
of Justice of the European Communities

(Case T-174/01)

(2001/C 317/53)

(Case T-172/01)

(2001/C 317/52)

(Language of the case: French)

the Court of

An action against
the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
the European Communities on 26 July 2001 by M,
of
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Harisios Tagaras,
lawyers.

Justice of

(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was
made: German)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
30 July 2001 by Ms Jean M. Goulbourn of Makati, Metro
Manila (Philippines), represented by Dr Siegfried Jackermeier,
with an address for service in Luxembourg. Further party
before the board of appeal: Redcats SA, Roubaix (France).

10.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 317/27

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— Annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of

OHIM of 25 April 2001 (Case R641/2000-3);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity mark:

the applicant

Trade mark applied for:

‘Silk Cocoon’
in
Class 25 (clothing) — Application
No 551903

goods

for

Holder of the rights in
the mark or sign relied merly La Redoute SA)
on in the opposition
proceedings:

Redcats SA, Roubaix (France) (for-

Opposed mark or sign:

the French and international word
mark ‘Cocoon’
in
Class 25

for goods

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

dismissal of the opposition

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

annulment of the Decision of the
Opposition Division

Pleas in law relied on:

— infringement of Article 43(2)
Regulation

of
Council
No 40/94 (1);

— lack of evidence of genuine

use of the opposed marks;

— infringement of Rule 22(2)
of Commission Regulation
No 2868/95 (2);

— infringement of Rule 22(1)
of Commission Regulation
No 2686/95.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

Action brought on 31 July 2001 by Société des mines de
Sacilor Lormines against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-175/01)

(2001/C 317/54)

(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 31 July 2001 by Sacilor Lormines,
a mining company established at Puteaux (France), represented
by Geneviève Marty, avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the implied decision of 9 July 2001 by which the
Commission refused to comply with the letter of formal
notice communicated by the applicant on 9 May 2001;

— annul the express decision of 10 July 2001 by which the
Commission refused to comply with the letter of formal
notice communicated by the applicant on 9 May 2001;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and principal arguments

The applicant company in this case, which is also the applicant
in Case T-107/01, (1) claims to have been subjected to excessive
financial pressure by the French authorities in consequence of
its commencement of the procedures for abandonment and
surrender of
the French
its mining licences. Because of
administration’s wish to block it, the said surrender has been
impossible to effect.

Faced with what it claims to be a refusal by the French
administrative courts to protect the rights to which it is entitled
under the ECSC Treaty, the applicant lodged a complaint with
the Commission against the French State. Since that complaint
was rejected, it brought before the Court of First Instance an
action for failure to act and annulment, which was registered
under No T-107/01, referred to above.

On this occasion the applicant has addressed a further letter of
formal notice to the Commission asking it to find that France
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(b) and 86
ECSC. The Commission’s failure to respond has given rise to
an implied decision of rejection which is open to challenge.
Further, on 19 July 2001, the applicant received a letter
informing it that the Commission considered that Article 4(b)
ECSC was not applicable to the case. Those are the decisions
which are challenged.