Case T-320/03: Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Citicorp against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Date: 2003-11-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), banking, trade-mark law

C 275/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.11.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant received a grant from the Commission in 1996
within the framework of a project to create a joint venture
with a Polish undertaking. The request for a grant was based
on application of a regional development plan entitled ‘Joint
Venture PHARE TACIS Program’. Following an investigation
carried out
the applicant’s premises and an
exchange of correspondence between the applicant and the
Commission, the latter, by a missive of 8 July 2003, instructed
the bank acting as financial intermediary for the development
plan to effect full recovery of the funds paid to the applicant.
It is this notification which constitutes the decision under
challenge by the applicant.

in 2002 at

In support of its action, the applicant first invokes an alleged
breach of the provisions of Regulation No 1 (1) inasmuch as
the contested decision was drafted in English and not in
French, even though it was addressed to the applicant, which
is a French company. The applicant also pleads an alleged
failure to comply with the four-year limitation period laid
down in Article 3 of Council Regulation No 2988/95 (2). The
applicant further submits that the contested decision, which
was not signed by the competent Commissioner but by a Head
infringes the principle of
of Unit and an administrator,
collegiate responsibility and originates from an authority
lacking competence.

The applicant contends further that the contested decision is
vitiated by a substantive inaccuracy as to the facts, lacks any
legal basis, fails to satisfy the obligation to state reasons, and
infringes the principles of proportionality and audi alteram
partem and the right to due process.

(1) Regulation No 1 of the Council determining the languages to be
used by the European Economic Community (OJ English Special
Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).

(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial
interests (OJ L 312 of 23.12.1995, pp. 1 to 4).

— annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) of 25 June 2003 (Case R 85/2002-
3);

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

Office.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Trade mark concerned:

‘LIVE RICHLY’ (word) — Appli-
cation No. 2112647.

Products or services:

‘Financial and monetary services
and real estate affairs; in particu-
lar: banking; credit card; commer-
cial and consumer lending and
financing; real estate and mort-
gage brokerage; trust, estate and
fiduciary management, planning
and consulting;
investment and
investment advisory and con-
sulting; securities brokerage and
trading services facilitating secure
financial
insurance
transactions,
services; in particular, underwrit-
ing and sales of property, casualty
and life insurance policies and
annuity contracts’ (Class 36)

Challenged
before
Appeal:

Decision
the Board of

Refusal of
examiner

registration by the

Pleas in law:

Violation of Articles 7(1)(b) and
73, first and second sentences, of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Citicorp against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Juckem GmbH
and Others against European Parliament and Council of
the European Union

(Case T-320/03)

(2003/C 275/84)

(Case T-321/03)

(2003/C 275/85)

(Language of the case: English)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 September 2003 by Citicorp,
New York (USA),
represented by Dr V. von Bomhard,
Dr A. Pohlmann and Dr. A. Renck, lawyers.

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance on 8 September 2003 by Juckem GmbH and 244
other companies, represented by D. Waalbroeck and N. Ram-
pal, avocats.