Case T-182/03: Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Gianmarco Addimando and Others against the European Parliament
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, Greece, action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses, redemption, regulations for civil servants

2.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/43

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community
sought:

trade mark

Word mark ‘DigiFilm’, applica-
tion no 2 467 348

Decision contested before
the Board of Appeal:

Refusal by the examiner of re-
gistration

Goods or services:

Goods and services in Classes 9
(storage media
and 42
(creating photographs etc.)

etc.)

Decision contested before
the Board of Appeal:

Refusal by the examiner of re-
gistration

Decision of
Appeal:

the Board of

Dismissal of the applicant's ap-
peal

Decision of
Appeal:

the Board of

Dismissal of the applicant's ap-
peal

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
and (c) and Article 7(2) of Reg-
ulation No 40/94 (1)

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

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

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
and (c) and Article 7(2) of Reg-
ulation No 40/94 (1)

Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Gianmarco Addi-
mando and Others against the European Parliament

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

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

Action brought on 19 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG &
Co. OHG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-179/03)

(2003/C 184/95)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Market
the European Communities on
Court of First
19 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG, Oldenburg
(Germany), represented by Chr. Spintig, lawyer.

Instance of

The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
defendant of 12 March 2003 in Case R 638/2002-3;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community
sought:

trade mark

Word mark ‘DigiFilmMaker’, ap-
plication no 2 467 017

(Case T-182/03)

(2003/C 184/96)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
20 May 2003 by Gianmarco Addimando, residing in Luxem-
bourg, and 32 other officials, represented by G. Bounéou,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
changing, with effect from a year not further specified
(1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
during which the
the
the procedure for calculating the
European Parliament),
annual expense of travelling to Greece in respect of the
journey via Brindisi, as taken into consideration for the
destination of Athens;

applicants were officials of

or, in the alternative,

— annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
(1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
the
during which the
European Parliament), the cost of the sea passage from
Brindisi to various Greek frontier points (Corfu, Igoume-
nitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;

applicants were officials of

— annul all

the applicants' pay slips

implementing the

decisions annulment of which is sought;

Goods or services:

Goods and services in Classes 9
(storage media
and 42
(creating photographs etc.)

etc.)

— reimburse to the applicants all

the amounts not paid
following implementation of the decisions annulment of
which is sought, together with legal interest;

C 184/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2003

— make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the

Parliament to pay those costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Parlia-
ment's decision changing the method of calculating annual
travel expenses to Greece.

The pleas in law and main arguments put
forward by the
applicants in support of their application are similar to those
of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).

(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
(2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.

Action brought on 26 May 2003 by Applied Molecular
Evolution, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-183/03)

(2003/C 184/97)

(Language of the case: English)

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
26 May 2003 by Applied Molecular Evolution, Inc., San Diego,
USA, represented by Mr A. Deutsch, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade-
marks and Designs)
case R 108/2002-2 of
13 March 2003.

in the

— Order the defendant to register the mark No 001586510

‘APPLIED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION’

— Order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the

defendant

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
trade mark:

for Community

Applied Molecular
Inc

Evolution,

Community
sought:

trade mark

Word mark ‘APPLIED MOLECU-
LAR EVOLUTION’
for certain
services in Class 42 (application
No 001586510)

Examiner's decision:

Application refused

Decision of
Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board of

Appeal dismissed

Misapplication of Article 7(1)
(b) and (c), of Regulation 40/
94 (1).

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

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

Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Metrovacesa SA
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
against
Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-184/03)

(2003/C 184/98)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

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
21 May 2003 by Metrovacesa SA, (Madrid), represented by José
Antonio Calderón Chavero, lawyer at the Madrid Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM

of 10 March 2003 in Case R-183/2002;

— dismiss in its entirety opposition procedure no B262.271;

— uphold the claims of the appellant and allow the relevant
Opposition Division at OHIM to register the trade mark
in question; and

— order OHIM and the other parties to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
trade mark:

for Community

GESINAR S.L. (Assignee: the ap-
plicant)

Community
sought:

trade mark

Figurative mark ‘Gesinar’ — Ap-
plication no 1 202 027 for
goods in Classes 35, 36 and
41 (business management assis-
tance, administration, brokerage,
leasing,
appraisal
evaluation,
and development of all kinds
of real estate;
tokens
of value, educational and enter-
tainment services)

issue of

Proprietor of mark or sign
cited in the opposition pro-
ceedings:

GESTIONES
VAS Y SERVICIOS
LIARIOS MAR S.L.

ADMINISTRATI-
INMOBI-