Case T-186/02: Action brought on 14 June 2002 by BMI Bertollo S.r.l. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2002-08-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), boiler, household electrical appliance

C 191/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.8.2002

for the conclusions concerning the impact of the scheme on
intra-Community trade.

(1) OJ 1997 C 283, p. 2.

Action brought on 11 June 2002 by Georgios Gouvras
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-180/02)

(2002/C 191/51)

(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 11 June 2002 by Georgios
Gouvras, residing in Bereldange (Luxembourg), represented by
Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne Marchal and Albert Coolen, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

in the interests of

In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
of the first indent of Article 37(a) and Article 38 of the Staff
Regulations in that the contested decision changes the place of
employment of the applicant during the period in which he
was on secondment
the service. The
applicant further alleges infringement of Article 85 of the Staff
Regulations and breach of the principle prohibiting arbitrary
decisions, the principle that legitimate expectations are to be
protected and the duty to have regard for the welfare of
officials inasmuch as the applicant was unaware of the irregular
nature of the payments received. Finally, the applicant alleges
infringement of Articles 5 and 10 of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations.

Action brought on 14 June 2002 by BMI Bertollo S.r.l.
against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-186/02)

(2002/C 191/52)

the case:

(Language of
to be determined in accordance with
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the
application was drafted: Italian)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 14 August 2001 of the Staff
Administration and Management Directorate Luxem-
bourg and Ispra of DG Admin:

An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
14 June 2002 by BMI Bertollo S.r.l., whose registered office is
in Pianezze San Lorenzo (Italy), represented by Federico
Tedeschini, Maurizio Pinnaro` and Patrik Santer.

— fixing, with effect from 1 November 2000, the place
of employment as Athens, retrospectively removing
his right to the expatriation allowance, to the annual
travel expenses and applying to his salary the
weighting applicable to Greece;

— to withhold from his remuneration, pursuant to that

decision, any amount in general;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of 19 March 2002 of the Third Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
in the appeal against the decision of 28 February 2001 of the
Fifth Unit of
the Opposition Division and consequently
uphold the registration application submitted by the applicant
undertaking.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

The applicant

The applicant, whose place of employment was Luxembourg,
was seconded in the interests of the service to the Greek
Ministry of Health. The contested decision fixes, with retrospec-
tive effect as from 1 November 2000, his place of employment
as Athens, with all the implications of that decision. Further-
more, the Commission decided to withhold from his salary,
pursuant to the contested decision, any amount in general.

The Community trade
mark concerned:

Figurative mark ‘DIESELIT’ —
Registration
application
No 880211, registration sought
in respect of goods and services
within Classes 7, 11 and 21 (flat
irons, steam irons and ironing
boards)

10.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 191/31

Diesel SpA

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

Trade mark or
sign
Italian trade mark ‘DIESEL’ regis-
tered under No 686092 and Com-
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition munity trade mark ‘DIESEL’, regis-
tered under No 000743401 in
proceedings:
respect of goods within Classes 7,
11 and 21 and 11 and 21 respect-
ively

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Registration application dismissed

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Appeal dismissed

Grounds of claim:

Total lack of similarity between
the two trade marks and no likeli-
hood whatever of confusion or
association. Moreover, the party
which brought opposition pro-
ceedings has not adduced evi-
dence of serious use of the mark
in respect of goods within the
classes in concerned.

Action brought on 18 June 2002 by Ente per le Ville
Vesuviane against Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-189/02)

(2002/C 191/53)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 June 2002 by Ente per le Ville
Vesuviane, represented by Enrico Soprano, avvocato.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Directorate-General for Regional
Policy of the European Commission No D (2002) 810111
of 13 March 2002 and No (86) 2029/120 of 18 Decem-

ber 1986, and accordingly declare that Ente per le Ville
Vesuviane is entitled to final payment of the assistance
received until now and to have the remainder of the
funding paid to it as requested on 13 December 2000
and still outstanding;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case, a public-law consortium
whose object is to protect and improve the complex of sites
consisting of the Ville Vesuviane (the towns around Vesuvius)
dating from the 18th Century, is contesting the decision of the
the European
Directorate-General
Commission D (2002) 810111, 102504, of 13 March 2002
bringing to an end the financial assistance paid to the applicant
itself, pursuant to Commission Decision No C (86) 2029/120
of 18 December 1986 of the European Regional Development
Fund (intervention No 86/05/04/054).

for Regional Policy of

In support of its arguments, the applicant claims that:

— the contested measures were adopted on the mistaken
assumption that the delays in the project being financed
were not as a result of the relevant work being subject to
a suspension for judicial reasons, within the meaning of
Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 of
20 July 1993 (1). On the contrary, while the project was
under way, the applicant was obliged to initiate several
court proceedings seeking the removal of the occupants
of numerous areas and buildings which were to be
restored as part of the improvements in the Vesuvius
towns of Favorita and Ruggiero. The applicant further
claims that the defendant failed to make inquiries in that
regard.

— its rights of defence were infringed in that, contrary to
Article 4 of Commission Decision No C (86) 2020 of
18 December 1986, the applicant, who was in receipt of
assistance, did not have the opportunity to submit its
own observations to the Commission before the adoption
by the latter of the contested decision.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 of 20 July 1993 amending
Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 laying down provisions for
implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/898 as regards the
European Regional Development Fund (OJ 1993 L 193, p. 34).