Case T-360/02: Action brought on 27 November 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-03-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), pension scheme, seizure of goods, servant (EU)

8.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/27

Pleas in law and main arguments

Grounds of claim:

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark Word mark ‘VITAKRAFT’
concerned:

for
goods in Classes 1, 3, 4, 12 and
19 (inter alia, Chemicals used in
industry, science, photography, as
well as in agriculture, horticulture
and forestry, Bleaching prep-
arations and other substances for
laundry use, Industrial oils and
greases, Vehicles and Building
materials (non metallic)) — Appli-
cation No 303909

KRAFFT, S.A.

Owner 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:

The Spanish figurative marks
‘krafft’ for goods in Classes 1, 3,
4, 12 and 19 (inter alia, Chemicals
used in industry, science, pho-
tography, as well as in agriculture,
horticulture and forestry, Bleach-
ing preparations and other sub-
stances for laundry use, Industrial
oils and greases, Vehicles and
Building materials (non metallic))

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Refusal of registration as regards
Classes 1 and 3 and dismissal of
the opposition in so far as it
concerned Classes 4, 12 and 19

— Infringement of Article 43(2)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/
94 (1) and Rule 22(2) of the
implementing Regulation (2);

— Infringementof Article 8(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

(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 27 November 2002 by Wolf-Dieter
Graf Yorck von Wartenburg against the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case T-360/02)

(2003/C 55/76)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 November 2002 by Wolf-
Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg, Wittibreut, Germany,
represented by H.-H. Heyland, Rechtsanwalt, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of KRAFFT S.A.’s appeal
with regard to the following
goods in the application, ‘candles,
wicks’ in Class 4, ‘Vehicles, appar-
atus for locomotion by land, air
or water’ in Class 12 and ‘non-
metallic transportable buildings;
in
monuments, not of metal’
Class 19 and dismissal of
the
in respect of
applicant’s appeal
all goods in the application in
Classes 1 and 3

— Declare that, in amending the decision of 22 June 2000
and in its conduct of the complaint procedure R/332/
2002 which followed, the Commission disregarded the
prescribed legal and administrative provisions inasmuch
as it announced a change in the decision of 22 June 2000,
carried out no hearing with representation of the parties
following an objection by the applicant and the direct
beneficiaries of the decision, ignored the formal require-
ments for attachment under German and Belgian law,
even though these had been notified to it in writing, and
instead instructed bailiff M to draw up a partition scheme,
which it received and, without giving reasons, then failed
to carry out;

C 55/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2003

— Order the Commission to carry out the partition scheme
of bailiff M of 19 August 2002, at least in relation to the
amount of his pension, which under Belgian law has
protection against
the seizure order of bailiff V of
18 March 2002;

— Order the Commission to compensate the applicant
for the loss (including that incurred through interest
payments on bridging loans and non-material damage at
the discretion of the court, not being less than EUR 100,
together with costs incurred in enforcing his rights)
arising from the fact that, since May 2002, his pension
has been entirely deposited with bailiff M, although the
Commission is or must be aware that such conduct is
unlawful,
the amount of compensation for material
damage on account of the continuing illegality to be
determined in the event of the declaration being granted.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former temporary servant now in retirement,
draws a pension from the Communities. He claims that the
Commission has unlawfully made maintenance payments out
of his pension to his former wives.

The applicant argues that, in making deductions from his
pension, the Commission disregarded the prescribed legal and
administrative rules and infringed his right to a proper hearing.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the defendant of 25 September

2002 in the appeal procedure R 338/2001-1;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark Word mark ‘SnTEM’ — Appli-
applied for:

cation No 1421734

Goods or services:

Goods in Class 6 (inter alia, met-
allic semi-finished products in the
form of sheets, trips, wires, tubes,
sections and rods)

Decision
Board of Appeal:

before

the

Refusal of
examiner

registration by the

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement

of
Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94
since the mark is not descrip-
tive.

Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke
AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke
AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-367/02)

(2003/C 55/77)

(Case T-368/02)

(2003/C 55/78)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language of the case: 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
9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG, Ulm (Germany),
represented by S. Gruber and F. Graf von Stosch, lawyers.

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
9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG, Ulm (Germany),
represented by S. Gruber and F. Graf von Stosch, lawyers.