Case T-288/03: Action brought on 13 August 2003 by TeleTech Holdings, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2003-10-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, action for annulment (EU), telecommunications, trade-mark law

18.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/19

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 April 2003 in Case
No R 221/2002-4;

Action brought on 13 August 2003 by TeleTech Holdings,
Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-288/03)

(2003/C 251/36)

— order the defendant Office to pay the costs of the pro-

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Wilkinson Sword GmbH

Pleas in law and main arguments

ceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Community trade mark
sought:

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the opposi-
tion proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

The applicant

Figurative mark ‘XTREME RIGHT
GUARD SPORT’
in respect of
goods in Class 3 (non-medicated
preparations for use in the bath
anti-perspirants;
or
in
deodorants;
3) — application
Class
No 1486745

included

shower;

all

The German figurative marks
‘WILKINSON SWORD EXTREME’
(Nos 399 23 715 and 399 45 175)
in respect of goods in Class 3
(shaving cosmetics)

Decision
Opposition Division:

of

the

Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Annulment of the decision of the
Opposition Division and refusal
of the applicant's application for
registration

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 8(1)
(EC)

Regulation

of

(b)
No 40/94;

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
13 August 2003 by TeleTech Holdings, Inc., established in
Denver, Colorado, (USA), represented by E. Armijo Chávarri
and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM
of 28 May 2003 in Case R-412/2000-1 and, subject to
the appropriate procedural steps, give judgment uphold-
ing either the applicant's principal claim or its alternative
claim.

Community trade mark
in respect of which
declaration of invalidity
sought:

Word mark ‘TELETECH GLOBAL
VENTURES’ — Registered trade
mark No 134.908, for products
in Classes 35 and 38.

Owner of
the Com-
munity trade mark in
respect
which
of
declaration of invalidity
sought:

Person applying for a
declaration of invalidity:

The applicant.

Teletech International S.A. (owner
of
the national word mark
‘TELETECH INTERNATIONAL’),
in respect of certain goods within
Class 35 (business management
for technical services, customer
relations and call centres) and
Class 38 (telecommunications
services).

Application upheld in part

Appeal upheld, solely in so far as
the contested decision declared
the Community mark in issue
‘business
invalid in respect of
management assistance services
consisting of
facilities manage-
ment and site selection services’.

— No likelihood of confusion;

— No similarity between the

opposing marks.

Decision
Cancellation Division:

of

the

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

C 251/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.10.2003

Pleas in law:

— Breach of the principles of
of
coexistence
the
Community marks
and
national marks and signs
and of the applicant's rights
of defence.

— In the alternative,

infringe-
ment of Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

— annul the belated express rejection by the appointing
authority on 11 June 2003 of the applicant's administra-
tive appeal;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 21 August 2003 by Carla Giulietti
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-293/03)

(2003/C 251/37)

(Language of the case: French)

The applicant was a candidate in General Competition COM/
A/6/01 to constitute a reserve for the recruitment of adminis-
trators in the fields of external relations and management of
aid to non-member countries. The notice of competition con-
tained the requirement of professional experience at a level
commensurate with that of the duties described, for a mini-
mum period of three years. However, it was stated that officials
and other servants of the European Communities were not
required to have the abovementioned professional experience
if they had served in category B for at least three years and had
successfully completed a university course.

the Commission of

An action against
the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 21 August 2003 by Carla
represented by P.-P. van
Giulietti,
Gehuchten and J. Sambon, lawyers, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

residing in Brussels,

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision taken by the Selection Board in com-
petition COM/A/6/01 to exclude the applicant on the
ground of lack of professional experience, that decision
being contained in the letter from DG ADMIN to the
applicant dated 16 October 2002;

— annul the confirmative decision of 21 November 2002;

Upon submitting her candidature, the applicant submitted as
evidence of her professional experience the fact that she had
served for more than three years as President of
the
Management Board of the Foundation ‘Eau pour le Sahel’. By
the contested decision, the Selection Board excluded her on the
ground that she did not have the professional experience
required.

In support of her action, the applicant claims that the clause
relating to professional experience infringed the principle of
equality owing to the fact that such experience is required only
for external candidates, while it is not a requirement for can-
the
didates who are already officials or other servants of
European Communities. She also alleges infringement of the
principle of legality and a manifest error of assessment in the
application by the Selection Board of the clause relating to
professional experience.