Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2003 in Case T-308/01: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Opposition procedure — Genuine use of earlier mark — Scope of the examination conducted by the Board of Appeal — Assessment of the evidence produced in the procedure before the Opposition Division)
Date: 2003-12-13
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Germany, action for annulment (EU), trade mark, trade-mark law

C 304/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.12.2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 23 September 2003

in Case T-308/01: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and
Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Opposition procedure —
Genuine use of earlier mark — Scope of the examination
conducted by the Board of Appeal — Assessment of the
evidence produced in the procedure before the Opposition
Division)

(2003/C 304/46)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case T-308/01, Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf
lawyer, with an
(Germany), represented by C. Osterrieth,
address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Agent: O. Waelbroeck), the other party to the proceedings
before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) being: LHS (UK) Ltd, established in
Cheadle Hulme (United Kingdom): Appeal against the decision
of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September
2001 (Case R-738/2000-3) concerning opposition proceed-
ings between Henkel KGaA and LHS (UK) Ltd, the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
23 September 2003, in which it:

1. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) of 12 September 2001 (Case R-738/2000-3);

2. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.

of 14 October 2003

in Case T-174/02: Micole Wieme v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Officials — Vacancy notice — Assessment of the candi-
dates’ merits — Manifest error of assessment — Abuse of
power)

(2003/C 304/47)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-174/02: Micole Wieme, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, represented by É. Boi-
gelot,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
J. Currall, H. Tserepa-Lacombe and D. Waelbroeck) — appli-
cation for annulment of the Commission Decision of 13 July
2001 rejecting the applicant’s application for the post of head
of unit ‘Legal affairs and control of enforcement of Community
provisions’ of the ‘General Matters’ Directorate of the Taxation
and Customs Union Directorate General — the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas,
President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 14 October 2003, in which it:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Order each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 18 September 2003

in Case T-241/02: Daniel Callebaut v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Officials — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Pro-
motion — Comparative examination of merits)

(2003/C 304/48)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-241/02: Daniel Callbaut, an official of the European
Communities, residing in Mondorf-les-Bains (Luxembourg),
represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers,