Case T-19/04: Action brought on 19 January 2004 by Metso Paper Automation Oy against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2004-03-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), computer equipment, pulp and paper industry, testing, trade-mark law

C 71/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.3.2004

Action brought on 16 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio
against the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 19 January 2004 by Metso Paper
Automation Oy against the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-18/04)

(2004/C 71/66)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Case T-19/04)

(2004/C 71/67)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuc-
cio, represented by Alessandro Distanto, avvocato.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting

his request;

— Declare that

the applicant

to
Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, to reimbursement of
100 % of all medical expenses incurred by him from
4 January 2002 until complete recovery;

is entitled, pursuant

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
19 January 2004 by Metso Paper Automation Oy, Tampere,
Finland, represented by J. Tanhuanpää, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision (1) partially as concerns
refusal to register the trade mark PAPERLAB on the
grounds of Article 7(1)(c) CTMR (item 1 of the order).
The subject appeal does not apply to item 2 of the order
in which the Board of Appeal remits the case to the
examiner for further prosecution on the grounds of
Article 7(3) CTMR;

— order the Office to pay the costs of the applicant.

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The trade mark con-
cerned:

The word mark ‘PAPERLAB’ —
application No 2 575 009

Goods or service con-
cerned:

in Class 9 (Computer
Goods
equipment and measuring instal-
lations for surveying and testing
of paper)

The applicant takes issue with the defendant’s refusal to
reimburse him 100 % of the medical expenses incurred by him
in the course of treating his illness.

Decision
before
Appeal:

contested
the Board of

Refusal of
examiner

registration by the

In support of those claims, the applicant alleges infringement
of Article 72 of the Staff Regulation and an absolute failure to
state reasons.

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

contested

The
decision was
upheld insofar as it rejected the
application on the grounds of
Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94. The case was remitted
to the examiner for further pros-
ecution on the
grounds of
Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94.

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/39

Grounds of claim:

— The mark ‘PAPERLAB’

is
registrable in Class 9 because
it does not directly describe
the goods in any manner;

— The trade mark ‘PAPERLAB’
can serve as a mark in trade
to distinguish goods of the
applicant
from goods of
other traders;

— The Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market
has accepted several similar
trademarks.

(1) Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonis-
(Trade Marks and Designs) of

ation in the Internal Market
17 November 2003 (Case R 842/2002-1).

2)

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants in the present case, all officials and servants
posted to the Food and Veterinary Office, Dublin, contest the
pay slips and the back pay slips concerning them for the
period since 1 July 2002.

In support of their application, the applicants put forward a
single plea in law challenging the validity of the weighting
fixed for
Ireland by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom)
No 2265/2002 of 16 December 2002 (1) inasmuch as, contrary
to Article 64 of
the Staff Regulations which lays down
the principle of equal purchasing power between officials
irrespective of their place of work does, that weighting does
not offset the difference between the actual cost of living at
their place of work and that in Brussels. Specifically, they state
that setting the weighting at 124,8 does not meet such a
requirement.

Action brought on 20 January 2004 by María Pilar Aguar
Fernández and 126 others against Commission of the
European Communities

(1) OJ 2002 L 347, p. 1.

(Case T-20/04)

(2004/C 71/68)

(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 María Pilar
Aguar Fernández and 126 others, all residing in Ireland,
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:

Action brought on 21 January 2004 by Fusion Electronics
Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-21/04)

(2004/C 71/69)

(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)

1)

annul the decisions of the Commission establishing the
pay slips and the back pay slips in respect of the applicants
since 1 July 2002 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC,
Euratom) No 2265/2002 of 16 December 2002 adjusting
with effect from 1 July 2002 the remuneration and
pensions of officials and other servants of the European
Communities and the weightings applied thereto;

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
21 January 2004 by Fusion Electronics Limited, Auckland,
New Zealand, represented by Mr A. Roughton Barrister. Ford
Motor Company was also a party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal.