Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-336/99: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
Date: 2002-02-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU law, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), polishing and scouring preparations, trade mark

C 31/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.2.2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 18 October 2001

in Case T-333/99: X v European Central Bank (1)

(Officials — Servants of the European Central Bank —
Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance — Legality of
conditions of employment — Rights of the defence —
Dismissal — Harassment — Misuse of the internet)

lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schen-
nen and S. Laitinen) — application brought against
the
decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and
Designs) of 21 September 1999 (Case R 71/1999-3), which
was notified to the applicant on 28 September 1999 — the
Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
A. W. H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:

(2002/C 31/14)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-333/99: X, residing in Frankfurt am Main (Germany),
represented by N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and S. Mittländer, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against European
Central Bank (Agents: C. Zilioli and V. Saintot and B. Wägen-
baur) — application for annulment of the decision of the
Executive Board of the European Central Bank of 9 November
1999 to continue the suspension of the applicant and to
withhold one half of his basic salary, and of the decision of
18 November 1999 dismissing the applicant — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President,
K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 October
2001, in which it:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 19 September 2001

in Case T-336/99: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing
machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —
Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94)

(2002/C 31/15)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-336/99: Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf
(Germany), represented by H.F. Wissel and C. Osterrieth,

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.00.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 15 November 2001

in Case T-349/00: Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Officials — 1974 framework agreement between the Com-
mission and the trade unions/staff associations — Revision
or modification — Consultation procedure — Introduction
of new modalities — Admissibility)

(2002/C 31/16)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-349/00: Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing at Senninger-
berg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti,
avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia
and J. Currall) — application for annulment of the ‘Operational
Rules on the consultation levels, the consultation body and
related procedures’ agreed between the Commission and the
majority of the trade unions/staff associations on 19 January
2000 or, alternatively, of the composition of the consultation
body as provided for by those rules in so far as it excludes the
trade union ‘Action & Défense’ from that body — the Court of
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,
Judges;
President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,
J. Plingers, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 15 November 2001, in which it: