Case T-307/03: Action brought on 4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft mbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2003-11-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing industry, trade-mark law

1.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 264/37

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark
sought:

The word mark ‘map&guide’ —
application No 2089829

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Goods or services:

Goods and services in Classes 9,
41 and 42 (computer software,
conducting training events for
computer software and computer
programming)

Community trade mark
sought:

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

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Decision
before
Appeal:

contested
the Board of

Refusal by the examiner to register
the mark in respect of ‘computer
software’ and ‘computer program-
ming’

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Bayer AG
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-304/03)

(2003/C 264/65)

The applicant in this casey

The word mark ‘NEXAVAR’ for
goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical
and veterinary preparations, diag-
nostic preparations for medicinal
purposes)
Application
—
No 1534213

Sanofi-Synthelabo
Anonyme)

(Société

The national word mark ‘BESA-
VAR’ for goods in Class 5 (pharm-
aceutical preparations)

Rejection of the opposition

Annulment of the decision of the
Opposition Division and refusal
of the application

There is no similarity between
the marks which could lead to
confusion

(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
submitted: German)

Action brought on 4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeut-
sche Handelsgesellschaft mbH against
the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and
Designs) (OHIM)

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
8 September 2003 by Bayer AG, Leverkusen (Germany),
represented by M. Wolpert, lawyer. Sanofi-Synthelabo (Société
Anonyme), Paris, was also a party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal.

(Case T-307/03)

(2003/C 264/66)

(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
submitted: German)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the decision of 4 June 2003 of the Fourth Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Case R 452/2002-4) and reject the opposition;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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
4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft
lawyer. Kaufring AG,
mbH, represented by U. Schuster,
Düsseldorf (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings
before the Board of Appeal.

C 264/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.11.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Valérie Wiame
against the Commission of the European Communities

— annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) in Case R 52/2002-4 of 12 May
2003 in so far as paragraph 2 of the decision dismisses
the appeal for the goods ‘jewellery’ and ‘bags for sports
equipment, suitable for carrying objects’;

(Case T-308/03)

(2003/C 264/67)

(Language of the case: French)

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for Com-

Kaufring AG

Community trade mark
sought:

Figurative mark ‘UNICA’ inter alia
for goods in Classes 14, 22, 23, 24
and 28 — Application No 41244

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

The applicant

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

German word mark ‘UNI CAT’
(No 2070 215 for goods
in
Class 25 (clothing, head cover-
ings)

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Partial rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Annulment of
the Decision in
relation to ‘artificial textile fibres’
(Class 22) and ‘yarns and threads,
for textile use’ (Class 23). For the
rest, dismissal of the applicant’s
appeal

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 September 2003 by Valérie
Wiame, residing in Enghien (Belgium), represented by S. Orlan-
di, A. Coolen, J. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— Annul the Commission’s decision of 22 July 2002 laying
down the detailed rules for the engagement of the
applicant as a member of the temporary staff on the
ground that
the contract was unlawfully based on
Article 2(b) of the Conditions of Employment of Other
Servants of the European Communities for a fixed period
from 1 July 2002 to 31 March 2003 inclusive;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant worked for the Commission as a member of its
temporary staff until 31 March 2002. The applicant states
that, in the light of specific assurances from her superiors as
to the renewal of her contract, she continued to perform the
permanent duties assigned to her in the European public
service from 1 April 2002 to 30 June 2002. On 22 July 2002,
the Commission drew up a new contract as a member of the
temporary staff for the period from 1 July 2002 to 31 March
2003 inclusive. That contract was based on Article 2(b) of the
Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European
Communities (‘the Conditions’).

As a result of the applicant’s complaint, the Commission paid
her a sum equal to three months’ basic salary by way of
compensation, but refused to give her a contract
for an
indefinite period pursuant to Article 2(a) of the Conditions.

In support of her application the applicant alleges breach of
Articles 2 and 8 of the Conditions, breach of the principle of
legitimate expectations and breach of the duty to have regard
for the welfare of officials.