Case T-27/04: Action brought on 27 January 2004 by the El Corte Inglés S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Date: 2004-03-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), press, trade-mark law

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/41

— declares, in Article 3, that certain aid that Spain intends
to grant to the applicant to cover exceptional restructur-
ing costs in 2001 are incompatible with Article 7 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002
on State aid to the coal industry (4);

— requires Spain,

in Article 4, to recover, among other

amounts, the aid mentioned in Article 1.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul

the decision of

the appointing authority of
20 December 2002 confirming the applicant’s initial
classification in Grade A 7;

— Annul,

to the extent necessary,

the
appointing authority of 9 October 2003 rejecting the
applicant’s complaint;

the decision of

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

— Order the defendant to pay all of the costs of the

— lack of competence on the part of the Commission to
adopt the decision challenged, following the expiry of the
ECSC Treaty;

— the inappropriateness of

the procedure followed in
adopting the decision challenged, the Commission having
failed to previously to revoke Articles 1, 2 and 5 of
Decision 2002/827/ECSC;

— infringement of

the principle of

legal certainty and
cumulative procedural errors, inasmuch as Article 1 of
the decision challenged treats as unlawful and incompat-
ible with the common market certain aid authorised by
Decision 98/637/ECSC, even though that aid had already
been held to be justified in Decision 2002/827/ECSC.

— a manifest error of assessment of the facts, inasmuch as
the Commission failed to take the view that certain aid
granted to the applicant to cover exceptional restructur-
ing costs was justified.

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

in Case T-17/95 (1),

the
Following the Court’s judgment
Commission adopted an amendment of the rules on the
criteria applicable to appointment in grade and classification
in step on recruitment. By the contested decision, it confirmed
the applicant’s classification in Grade A 7 at the date of his
recruitment and for that reason rejected his request to be
reclassified.

In support of his action, the applicant invokes the lack of
reasoning in the contested decision, a manifest error of
appraisal and alleged discrimination between the applicant
himself, whose request to be reclassified was rejected, and
other officials who, having professional experience as long as
his own, were able to secure reclassification.

(1) T-291/02 González y Díez v Commission (OJ 2002 C 289, p. 33).
(2) OJ 1998 L 303, p. 57
(3) OJ 2001 L 58, p. 24
(4) OJ 2002 L 205, p. 1.

(1) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties of 5 October 1995; published in OJ 1995 C 315 of
25.11.1995, p. 14.

Action brought on 20 January 2004 by Jacques Verborgh
against the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 27 January 2004 by the El Corte Inglés
S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market

(Case T-26/04)

(2004/C 71/71)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-27/04)

(2004/C 71/72)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 January 2004 by Jacques
Verborgh, residing in Aalter (Belgium), represented by Nicolas
Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 27 January 2004 by El Corte
Inglés, established in Madrid, represented by lawyers J.-L. Rivas
Zurdo and E. López Leiva, members of the Ilustre Colegio de
Madrid.

C 71/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.3.2004

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— annul the decision by OHIM (Second Board of Appeal) of
10 November 2003 in case R 0285/2002-2, which by
dismissing the applicant’s appeal gives grounds for a
future right to Community trade mark No 1.155.985,
‘THE OBSERVER’, in Classes 18, 25, 28, 35 and 41;

— refuse registration to Community mark No 1.155.985
‘THE OBSERVER’ in Classes 18, 25, 28, 35 and 41;

— order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the

costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Guardian Newspaper Limited

Action brought on 26 January 2004 by Castellblanch,
S.A., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-29/04)

(2004/C 71/73)

(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)

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
26 January 2004 by Castellblanch, S.A., Sant Sadurni d’Anoia,
Spain, represented by Mr F. de Visscher, Mr E. Cornu, Mr E. De
Gryse and Ms D. Moreau, lawyers. Champagne Louis Roederer
S.A. was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal.

Community trade mark Word mark ‘THE OBSERVER’ —
Application No 1.155.985,
for
applied for:
goods and services in Classes 9,
16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 36, 38 and 41

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
17 November 2003;

Proprietor of the oppos-
ing trade mark or sign:

Applicant

— Order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Opposing trade mark or
sign:

figurative

Spanish
mark
(No 953.859) and word mark
(No 2.116.030) for all goods and
services in Classes 18, 25, 28, 35
and 41

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Castellblanch S.A.

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Dismissal of the opposition

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Sufficient use of

the two
marks which form the basis
for the opposition

Community trade mark
sought:

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

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

Figurative mark ‘CRISTAL CAS-
TELLBLANCH’
in
class 33 (wine)

goods

for

CHAMPAGNE LOUIS ROEDE-
RER, S.A.

National word mark ‘CRISTAL’
for goods in class 33 (champagne,
sparkling wines)

— Incorrect

application

of
Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Registration refused

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Appeal rejected