Case T-10/04: Action brought on5 January 2004 by Carlos Leite Mateus against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-03-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), assistant, promotion, staff assessment

C 59/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.3.2004

Grounds of the appeal:

Wrong application of Article
8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
94 (likelihood of confusion), fail-
ure to state reasons and misuse
of powers by manifest error of
assessment
inconsistency
and
with the Examiner’s decision of
23 November 1999 regarding
partial rejection of the registration
of the mark concerned.

Action brought on 9 January 2004 by Muswellbrook
Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-8/04)

(2004/C 59/57)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicants for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Friedrich Grimm and Engelbert
Rolli

Community trade mark
sought:

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

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

Community trade mark appli-
cation No 847640 for word mark
SNIKE in relation to certain goods
in classes 12, 25 and 41 (Vehicles,
clothing, footwear, headgear, edu-
cation, entertainment,...)

The applicant, Muswellbrook Ltd.

certain goods

The national figurative mark No
in
88222 for
class 25 (Stockings, socks, shirts,
gloves, coats, footwear, sporting
footwear, ...)

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Rejection of the opposition

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

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

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
9 January 2004 by Muswellbrook Limited, Dublin, Ireland,
represented by Ms P. Koch Moreno, lawyer. Friedrich Grimm
and Engelbert Rolli were also party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the decision which was issued on 5 November
2003 by the First Board of Appeal of OHIM, which
dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against the resolution of
29 April 2002 in opposition procedure No B 1181/
2002, which dismissed the opposition that was lodged
against community trade mark application No 847640
for the registration of the word SNIKE in relation to all
the products of class 25 covered by the application, does
not comply with the EC Regulations on Community
Trade Marks, No 40/94, and that the said decision be set
aside;

— declare that there is a risk of confusion between the
community trade mark application with No 847640 for
the word SNIKE in class 25 and Spanish trade mark
No 88222, consisting of the word NIKE with device,
which protects identical products that also fall under
class 25;

— order the respondent and, if applicable, the intervening

party to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law:

Violation of Article 8 (1) (b) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 40/
941 (1)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).

Action brought on5 January 2004 by Carlos Leite Mateus
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-10/04)

(2004/C 59/58)

(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 5 January 2004 by Carlos Leite
Mateus, residing in Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Sébas-
tien Orlandi, Albert Coolen,
Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/37

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the final decision of 20 December 2002 fixing the
applicant’s classification on recruitment in Grade B 3
with effect from 1 March 1988;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

European Communities on 14 January 2004 by Georges
Martins, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi,
Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Annul the Commission’s decision of 14 April 2003 in so

The applicant was classified in Grade B, Step 3, upon entering
the service of the Commission in March 1988 and is contesting
the appointing authority’s decision not to reclassify him after
reconsidering his situation following the judgment of the
Court of Justice in Case C-389/98 P Gevaert.

the applicant submits that

In support of his claims,
in
reconsidering his file, the Commission took the view that his
professional experience could be taken into account only from
May 1970, the date on which he obtained the diploma
rendering him eligible for a Category B post. The applicant
claims that he obtained his diploma of secondary education in
July 1964. He submits that the decision is vitiated by a
manifest error of assessment and is therefore unlawful.

The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of
Article 5 of the Staff Regulations.

Action brought on 14 January 2004 by Georges Martins
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-11/04)

(2004/C 59/59)

(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

far as it:

— revises and fixes, with effect from 1 June 1991, the
in Gra-

applicant’s classification on recruitment
de A 6, Step 1;

— revises and fixes, with effect from 1 April 2000, his

classification in Grade A 5, Step 3;

— limits the pecuniary effects to 5 October 1005;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was classified in Grade A 7, Step 3, upon
entering the service in June 1991 with the Economic and
Social Committee and was transferred to the Commission on
1 November 1992. On 31 July 2002, the appointing authority
of the Economic and Social Committee revised and fixed his
recruitment on classification in Grade A 6, Step 1.

In the applicant’s submission, the Commission was therefore
required to take the measures to implement that decision with
effect from 1 November 1992, the date on which he was
transferred to its services, and also to reconstruct his career; as
it has failed to do so, it has infringed Articles 62 and 45 of the
Staff Regulations and also the principle that an official
is
entitled to reasonable career prospects.