Case T-368/02: Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2003-03-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), metal product, semi-manufactured goods, trade-mark law

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.

8.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/29

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— annul the decision of the defendant of 25 September

2002 in the appeal procedure R 337/2001-1;

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

cation No 1422294

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

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)

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

cation No 1421775

Decision
Board of Appeal:

before

the

Refusal of
examiner

registration by the

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of appeal

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)

Pleas in law:

Decision
Board of Appeal:

before

the

Refusal of
examiner

registration by the

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of appeal

— Infringement

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

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 12 December 2002 by Alpenhain-
Camembert-Werk Gottfried Hain GmbH & Co. KG and
six other undertakings against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-370/02)

(2003/C 55/80)

(Language of the Case: German)

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-369/02)

(2003/C 55/79)

(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.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the defendant of 25 September

2002 in the appeal procedure R 335/2001-1;

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 December 2002 by Alpenhain-
Camembert-Werk Gottfried Hain GmbH & Co. KG, established
in Lehen/Pfaffing (Germany), Bayerland eG, established in
Nuremberg (Germany), Bergpracht-Milchwerk GmbH & Co,
established in Tettnang (Germany), Hochland AG, established
in Heimenkirch (Germany), Käserei Champignon Hofmeister
GmbH & Co. KG, established in Lauben (Germany), Milchwerk
Crailsheim-Dinkelsbühl eG, established in Crailsheim (Germ-
any) and Rücker GmbH, established in Aurich (Germany),
represented by J. Salzwedel and M.J. Werner, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the inclusion, pursuant to Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002 amending the
Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard to the
name ‘Feta’, of the name ‘Feta’ (PDO) as a protected
designation of origin (PDO) in the register of protected
designations of origin;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.