Case T-51/03: Action brought on 11 February 2003 by Pi-Design AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), household electrical appliance, trade-mark law

26.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/45

Action brought on 11 February 2003 by Pi-Design AG
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

— There is no basis for stating
that the cafetière in question
is a manifestation of the ‘usu-
al shape of the product’.

(Case T-51/03)

(2003/C 101/79)

(Language of the case: Danish)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
11 February 2003 by Pi-Design AG, Triengen (Switzerland),
represented by Jacob S Ørndrup, lawyer

Action brought on 14 February 2003 by BPB plc against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-53/03)

(2003/C 101/80)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: English)

— annul the decision of the defendant of 5 December 2002
in Case No R452/2001-2 concerning EC trade mark
application No 000353854;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 February 2003 by BPB plc,
Slough, United Kingdom, represented by Thomas Sharpe QC
and Mr Alexandre Nourry, Solicitor with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Community trade mark
sought:

A three-dimensional trade mark
in the form of a ‘cafetière’ (push-
down coffee pot) — application
No 353854

Goods or services:

Nice classification 21 (non-elec-
tric coffee makers)

Decision
Board of Appeal:

before

the

Refusal of
examiner

registration by the

Decision of Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of appeal

— Annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested Decision insofar

as it relates to BPB

— In the alternative, annul Article 3 of the Decision insofar
as it relates to BPB or, in the further alternative, reduce
the fine imposed on BPB to such amount as the Court
determines in accordance with law

— Subject to the annulment of Article 3 of the Decision or
the reduction in the fine, order repayment of the principal
sum paid by BPB together with such interest as the Court
should determine in accordance with law

— Order the Commission to pay BPB’s costs.

Pleas in law:

— The defendant’s decision is
contrary to Article 7(1)(b) of
Regulation No 40/94 (1):

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The trade mark has

the
distinctive

necessary
character.

— The fact that the plaintiff’s
cafetière design is copied
should not in itself lead to
the trade mark application’s
being refused on grounds of
lack of distinctive character.

By its decision which forms the subject matter of the present
the defendant found that the applicant and three
action,
other undertakings, namely Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche
Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux, had
infringed Article 81 paragraph 1 EC by participating in a
complex and continuing agreement from 1992 until 1998
with the object of stabilising the principal EU markets in
plasterboard. The applicant denies that any agreement of the
type alleged existed.