Case T-201/03: Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Aneo AB against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Date: 2003-10-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), computer applications, medical device

4.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/9

Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Aneo AB against the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Cathal Boyle against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-201/03)

(2003/C 239/12)

(Case T-218/03)

(2003/C 239/13)

(Language of the case: English)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 June 2003 by Aneo AB, Märsta,
Sweden, represented by Mrs R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal at
OHIM of 21 February 2003 in case R 883/2001-4;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(OHIM) to permit registration of the term TIVAS as a
Community Trademark in respect of the services in
classes 09, 10 and 42 for which registration has been
refused;

— order the OHIM to refund the appeal fee to the applicant

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Cathal Boyle,
Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
capacity application for a proposed new vessel to replace
the MFV Marie Dawn;

— order the Office to pay the costs of the dispute, including
those relating to the procedure before the Board of
Appeal.

— order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Community trade
mark concerned:

‘TIVAS’
2025716

-

Application

No

Products or services:

Challenged
before
Appeal:

Decision
the Board of

Grounds submitted:

Products in classes 9 (computers
and peripherial devices thereto
and computer software for anaes-
thesia and intensive care), 10
(Medical apparatus and instru-
ments for anaesthesia and inten-
sive care) and 42 (medical-techni-
cal development and research)

Refusal of the application by the
examiner

Infringement of Artice 7(1)(b) and
(c) of Council Regulation (CE)
No 40/94

The applicant sought to replace his fishing vessel with a new
vessel, adding some distinct safety elements that required an
increase of gross tonnage. The application for an increase in
tonnage was submitted by Ireland to the European Com-
mission, who rejected it in the contested decision (1).

In support of its application, the applicant invokes, in the first
place, absence of power of the Commission. According to the
applicant, the Commission’s powers under Decision 97/413 (2)
concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring
the Community fisheries are limited. The applicant submits
that Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 imposes an obligation on
the Commission to determine applications for increases on a
case-by-case basis and that the only issues the Commission
may consider in making its decision are whether the increase
in capacity results exclusively from safety improvements and
whether it increases the fishing effort of the vessel. According
to the applicant, the Commission therefore had no power
under Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 to adopt certain other
criteria referred to in Article 1 of the contested Decision.