Case T-178/03: Action brought on 21 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), recording medium, trade-mark law, visual arts

C 184/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2003

Action brought on 19 May 2003 by Trudell Medical Inter-
the Office for Harmonisation in the
national against

Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Decision of
Appeal:

the Board of

Appeal granted, decision of the
Opposition Division annulled,
registration refused.

(Case T-176/03)

(2003/C 184/93)

Pleas in law:

(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of
the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
submitted: 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
19 May 2003 by Trudell Medical
International, London,
Ontario (Canada), represented by Helmut Eichmann, Gerhard
Barth, Ulrich Blumenroder, Christa Niklas-Falter, Maximilian
Kinkeldey, Karsten Brandt, Anja Franke, Ute Stephani, Bernd
Allekotte, Elvira Pfrang, Karin Lochner, Babett Ertle, lawyers.

Fisons Limited was also a party to the proceedings before the
Board of Appeal.

— misapplication of Article 8
(1)(b), of Regulation 40/
94 (1). The applicant alleges
there was no risk of
that
confusion between the two
marks concerned.

that

— misapplication of Articles 74
(1) and 73 and of Regula-
tion 40/94. The applicant
the Board of
alleges
Appeal
alleged
examined
facts and arguments which
were provided by neither
party and further based its
decision
on
which the parties concerned
have had no opportunity to
present their comments.

reasons

on

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

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

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade-
marks and Designs) in the case R 643/2002-1 of March
17, 2003;

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

defendant

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
trade mark:

for Community

Trudell Medical International

Community
sought:

trade mark

Word mark ‘AEROECLIPSE’
for
certain goods in Class 10 (ap-
plication No 001098649 )

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

Fisons Limited

Mark or sign cited in op-
position:

National mark ‘ECLIPSE’
spect
of
Classes 5 and 10.

certain

goods

in re-
in

Action brought on 21 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG &
Co. OHG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-178/03)

(2003/C 184/94)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Market
Court of First
the European Communities on
21 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 641/2002-3;

Decision of the Opposition
Division:

Opposition rejected.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

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;