Case T-377/03: Action brought on 17 November 2003 by ATI Technologies Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Date: 2004-01-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), electronic component, trade-mark law

24.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/39

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Dismissal of the appeal as inad-
missible as a result of a failure
to comply with the time-limit
prescribed for lodging appeals.

— infringement of Article 6 of
the European Convention on
Human Rights in that notifi-
cation by fax does not satisfy
the requirement for security
of notification in proceed-
ings.

— in the alternative,

infringe-
ment of Rules 55, 61 and 65
of Commission Regulation
No
of
Article 59 of Regulation
No 40/94.

2868/95

and

Pleas in law and main arguments

Competition notice CONSEIL/A/270 stated that candidates
were required to have a perfect command of one of the
official languages of the European Communities, a very good
knowledge of either English or French and an adequate
knowledge of the other of those two languages. However,
candidates choosing French or English as the language of
which they had a perfect command were required to show
evidence of a very good knowledge of the other of those two
languages and also an adequate knowledge of a third official
language. By his first plea, the applicant claims that this
provision discriminates between, on the one hand, anglophone
and francophone candidates and, on the other, other candi-
dates. In that context, he relies on breach of the principle of
equal
the first
paragraph of Article 28 of the Staff Regulations. By his second
plea, the applicant claims that, at the third written test,
candidates were asked to write a brief account of the role of
the Secretariat General of the Council,
the
competition notice, which provided for an account of the
activities of the Council. The third plea refers to the Council’s
refusal to grant the applicant access to the corrected copy of
his third written test. The applicant pleads infringement of
Article 255(1) EC and also breach of the obligation to state
reasons and of the principles of good management and good
administration.

treatment and also of subparagraph f of

in breach of

Action brought on 10 November 2003 by Michel Hen-
drickx against Council of the European Union

(Case T-376/03)

(2004/C 21/81)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 10 November 2003 by Michel Hendrickx,
residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions of the Selection Board for competition
CONSEIL/A/270 to award him an eliminatory mark for
written test A.3 and not to admit him to the oral tests;

— order the Council to pay the applicant symbolic damages
of one euro for the non-pecuniary harm sustained;

Action brought on 17 November 2003 by ATI Tech-
nologies Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market

(Case T-377/03)

(2004/C 21/82)

(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 17 November 2003 by ATI
Technologies Inc., established in Thornhill (Canada), represen-
ted by Chantal Silvia Moreau,
lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Asociación de Técnicos de Informatica — ATI was also a party
to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

C 21/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.1.2004

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision given by the Fourth Board of Appeal
of the defendant on 16 July 2003 in Case R 339/2002-4;

— join this action to Case T-314/03 for the purposes of the

written procedure and the oral procedure;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— annul

the decision of

the European Commission of
30 September 2003 requiring Musée Grevin to reimburse
the sums allegedly wrongly paid to it;

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

ATI Technologies Inc.

— order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

Community trade mark Word mark ‘ATI’ — Application
No 362 863 lodged in respect of
sought:
goods and services in Class 9
(electronic components etc.).

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Asociación
Informatica — ATI.

de

Técnicos

de

The applicant received grants from the Commission within the
framework of a project to create a joint venture with a Polish
undertaking. By decision of 8 July 2003, the Commission
sought repayment of the sums paid to the applicant.

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

Graphic mark ‘ati’ registered in
respect of services in Class 42.

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Refusal of
registration.

the application for

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law:

Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
lihood of confusion).

Action brought on 18 November 2003 by Musée Grevin
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-378/03)

(2004/C 21/83)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 November 2003 by Musée
Grevin, having its registered office in Paris, represented by
Bernard Geneste and Olivia Davidson, lawyers.

The applicant brought proceedings challenging that decision
(Case T-314/03, OJ 2003 C 275, p. 49). At the same time, the
applicant submitted documents to the Commission fully
substantiating the proper use of the Community funds, and
asked it to reconsider its decision. In the decision contested in
this case, the Commission confirmed its decision of 8 July
2003.

In support of its application, the applicant alleges, first, a
breach of Regulation No 1 (1), in that the contested decision
was written in English and not in French. It also alleges a
failure to respect the limitation period of four years laid down
in Article 3 of Council Regulation No 2988/95 (2). The
applicant alleges moreover a breach of
the principle of
collegiate responsibility and that the person who signed the
contested decision lacked competence.

The applicant also alleges that the decision lacks any legal
basis, contains a manifest error of assessment, fails to satisfy
the obligation to state reasons and, lastly, is in breach of the
principle of proportionality.

(1) Council Regulation No 1 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 1995 L 312, pp. 1-4).