Case T-248/03: Action brought on 30 June 2003 by Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Date: 2003-10-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), confectionery product, trade-mark law

C 239/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.10.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).

( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.

Action brought on 30 June 2003 by Société des Produits
Nestlé S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market

(Case T-248/03)

(2003/C 239/36)

Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Cecil Sharkey against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-240/03)

(2003/C 239/35)

(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
30 June 2003 by Société des Produits Nestlé S.A., Vevey,
Switzerland, represented by Mr J. Evrard, lawyer.

(Language of the case: English)

Grupo Kalise Menorquina, S.A. was also a party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

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 Cecil Sharkey,
Clogherhead, (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 in respect of the MFV Endurance;

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

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).

( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of

28 April 2003;

— order for payment of all costs of the proceedings against

the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark
sought:

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.

The figurative mark ‘POLO POLO’
(application No 803429)
for
goods in class 30 (a.o. cocoa and
preparations having a base of
cocoa, chocolate products, con-
fectionery, sweets, sugar, chewing
gum).

Grupo Kalise Menorquina S.A.

The Spanish national word mark
‘POLOS’
for goods in the old
Spanish class 7 (a.o. ice creams,
cocoas, chocolate products, cara-
mels, general confectionery prod-
ucts).

4.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/19

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Partial admission of
the oppo-
sition and allowance to proceed
to registration of the Community
trade mark for
the following
goods: cocoa, sugar and chewing
gum.

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal lodged by
Société des Produits Nestlé.

Pleas in law:

According to the applicant there
is no likelihood of confusion
between the two marks and it
refers in this respect to a judgment
of the Superior Court of justice in
Madrid that allegedly stated that
Menorquina was not entitled to
oppose the use of the word mark
‘POLO’ in Spain.

Action brought on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-250/03)

(2003/C 239/37)

(Language of the case: English)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The purpose of the present action is to challenge the legality
of the implied decision rejecting the complaint by the applicant
against her suspension from her duties following her removal
from the post of Accounting Officer and Budget Execution
Director in Directorate General Budget, and her transfer to the
position of Principal Adviser in Directorate General Personnel
and Administration, as the result of a disciplinary procedure.

This application is based on the following elements:

— Breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulation, through
the adoption of a measure resulting in the applicant’s
suspension without adequate grounds therefore, in the
absence of any breach of Articles 12, 21 or 60 of the
Staff Regulation.

— Breach of Article 88 of the Staff Regulation,

in the
absence of any serious misconduct that may justify the
urgent need to exclude her from the working place.

— Breach of the principle of proportionality, in as much as
the measure in question is to be qualified as dispro-
portionnal in relation to the allegations made against her.

— Breach of the rights of defence, through the adoption of
a suspension measure without ensuring the possibility of
the applicant being heard and protecting her rights.

Action brought on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht GmbH
+ Co.KG & 9 others against the Commission of the
European Communities

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen,
Brussels, Belgium, represented by I. Forrester, QC.

(Case T-251/03)

(2003/C 239/38)

(Language of the case: English)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting
the Applicant’s appeal against her suspension from her
duties;

— award her pecuniary damages for an amount of money
to be fixed by the Court, plus interest at 5 % or at such
other rate as may be fixed by the Court;

— award her the costs of the present action.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht
GmbH + Co.KG, Aulendorf, Germany, AniMedica GmbH,
Senden-Bösensell, Germany, Ceva Tiergesundheit GmbH, Düs-
seldorf, Germany, Fatro S.p.A., Bologna, Italy, Laboratorios
Syva S.A., León, Spain, Laboratorios Virbac S.A., Barcelona,
Spain, Química Farmacéutica Bayer S.A., Barcelona, Spain,
Univete Técnica Pecuaria Comercio Industria, Lda, Lisboa,
Portugal, Vétoquinol Especialidades Veterinarias S.A., Madrid,
Spain, Virbac S.A., Carros, France, represented by D. Wael-
broeck, U. Zinsmeister and N. Rampal, lawyers.