Case T-144/02: Action brought on 7 May 2002 by Richard J. Eagle, John G. Fanthome, Martin Gardener, Robert C. Walton, David Sands, Alexander Gaberscik, Beryl Marrs, Clifford Marren, Robert Felton, Carol Brickley, TF Atkins, Michael George Grant and Edward Junger against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-07-13
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Joint European Torus, action for annulment (EU), anti-discriminatory measure, staff regulations (EU), temporary employment

C 169/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.7.2002

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

The applicant

The Community trade
mark concerned:

Proprietor of the right to
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

Trade mark or
sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Grounds of claim:

Verbal mark ‘BIO-CANISAN’ —
Application No 353 896, relating
to goods in classes 5 and 31
(veterinary preparations and food-
stuffs for animals)

VETO-Centre

French trade marks No 1582968
‘biocanina ’(word and device),
relating to goods in classes 5 and
31, and No 1350892 ‘BIOCANI-
NA’), relating to goods in class 5

Refusal of the application

Dismissal of the appeal

Infringement of Article 43(2),
third sentence, and Article 8(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

— annul the Commission’s decision dated 22 January 2001;

— order the Commission to compensate the applicants for
their loss of earnings and other benefits caused by the
breaches of Community law;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants all worked in the JET Project as employees or
contractors to UK registered companies. According to the
applicants, however, they should have been recruited by the
Commission as temporary agents since they were part of the
JET Project Team.

The applicants claim that the failure of the Commission to
recruit the applicants as temporary agents was contrary the
JET statutes and constitutes an act ultra vires. According to the
applicants, the JET statutes did not provide for the possibility
of engaging staff who were working in the JET Project Team
through external contractors.

Furthermore, the applicants claim that the Commission dis-
criminated against them since this resulted in the applicants
being treated in a less favourable manner then those employed
by the Commission who were fulfilling substantially similar
roles in the JET Project.

Action brought on 7 May 2002 by Richard J. Eagle, John
G. Fanthome, Martin Gardener, Robert C. Walton, David
Sands, Alexander Gaberscik, Beryl Marrs, Clifford Marren,
Robert Felton, Carol Brickley, TF Atkins, Michael George
Grant and Edward Junger against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-144/02)

(2002/C 169/74)

(Language of the case: English)

Action brought on 15 May 2002 by Sunrider Corporation
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-156/02)

(2002/C 169/75)

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

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 May 2002 by Richard J. Eagle,
John G. Fanthome, Martin Gardener, Robert C. Walton, David
Sands, Alexander Gaberscik, Beryl Marrs, Clifford Marren,
Robert Felton, Carol Brickley, TF Atkins, Michael George Grant
and Edward Junger, represented by Mr Daniel Beard of
Monckton Chambers, London (United Kingdom).

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
15 May 2002 by Sunrider Corporation, Torrance (USA),
represented by A. Kockläuner, lawyer.

Frieslands Brands B.V., Leeuwarden (the Netherlands) was an
additional party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.