Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2003 In Joined Cases T-324/01 and T-110/02: Axions SA and Christian Belce v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Three-dimensional marks — Brown cigar shape and gold ingot shape — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
Date: 2003-07-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Switzerland, action for annulment (EU), confectionery, trade mark, trade-mark law

C 158/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2003

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action brought on 22 April 2003 by Antoinette Pascucci
against Europol

of 30 April 2003

In Joined Cases T-324/01 and T-110/02: Axions SA and
Christian Belce v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Three-dimensional marks —
Brown cigar shape and gold ingot shape — Absolute grounds
for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2003/C 158/40)

(Language of the case: German)

(OHIM)

In Joined Cases T-324/01 and T-110/02, Axion SA, established
in Geneva (Switzerland), Christian Belce, resident at Veyrier
(Switzerland), represented by C. Eckhartt, lawyer, v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and
(Agent: G. Schneider): Actions brought
Designs)
against two decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 26 September 2001 (Case R 599/2001-3) and
16 January 2002 (Case R 538/2001-3), relating to the
registration as Community trade marks of a three-dimensional
shape representing a brown cigar (Case T-324/01) and a three-
dimensional shape representing a gold ingot (Case T-110/02),
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed
of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges;
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 30 April 2003, in which it:

1. Dismisses the applications;

2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 68, 16.3.2002 and C 131, 1.6.2002.

(Case T-127/03)

(2003/C 158/41)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against Esuropol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 2003
by Antoinette Pascucci, represented by P. de Casparis and
M.F. Baltussen.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

Set aside Europol’s dismissal on 13 January 2003 of the
complaint lodged by the applicant against the decision of
30 September 2002 and at the same time annul the
decision of 30 September 2002;

2. Order Europol to extend the applicant’s contract of
employment to 1 July 2005 under the same conditions
as obtaining hitherto;

3. Order Europol to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant has been working for the defendant since 1 July
1999. Her contract of employment expires on 1 July 2003.
The applicant requested that her contract be extended for a
further four years. The defendant, however, decided to extend
her contract for only one year. The applicant has challenged
that decision.

In support of her application, the applicant first of all argues
that there has been an infringement of the principle that
reasons must be given.

The applicant goes on to argue that the defendant has exceeded
the bounds of its discretion. The defendant had adopted
premisses, policy rules and a plan of action with a view to
ensuring that contracts would be extended in an unambiguous
and transparent manner. In the applicant’s view, the defendant
exceeded the bounds of its discretion when applying those
rules.

The applicant submits further that there has been a breach of
the duty of care and an infringement of the principle of
equality.

The applicant concludes by contending that the defendant has
misused its powers. She submits that the defendant allowed
itself to be influenced by other, unlawful grounds when it took
its decision.