Action brought on 29 December 2003 by Ulrike Eppe against European Parliament
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, action for annulment (EU)

C 94/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.4.2004

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade
Marks and Designs) of 14 January 2003 (Case R 407/2002-
1);

— order the Office to pay the costs.

— annul the defendant's decisions of 24 February 2003, 28

April 2003, 20 May 2003 and 17 September 2003;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Community trade mark
sought:

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the opposi-
tion proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Pleas in law:

Licorera Zacapaneca S.A.

the figurative mark ‘VENADO’ for
goods in Classes 32 and 33 (inter
alia, mineral and aerated waters
and other non-alcoholic drinks,
rum, rum liqueurs and brandy) —
Application No 986976

the applicant

the figurative mark in the form of
a stag's head with a cross for
goods in Classes 18, 25, 32 and
33 (inter alia, umbrellas, clothing,
non-alcoholic beverages included
in Class 32, wines and spirits) —
Trade mark No 337337

rejection of the application

the opposition of the applicant for
the mark was allowed and the
objection of the applicant before
the Court dismissed

infringement of Article 73 of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94;
incorrect
application of Article
8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
40/94;
incorrect appraisal of the similarity
of the marks;
failure to take into account
reputation of the objection mark.

the

Action brought on 16 December 2003 by Angelo Wille
against European Parliament

Pleas in law and main arguments:

the decisions of

The applicant challenges
the Parliament
refusing to admit him to competition EUR/A/167/02. The
refusal was based on the ground that the applicant had not
completed a period of at least two years' professional experi-
ence after qualifying as a lawyer.

The applicant claims that the refusal is unlawful, as his applica-
tion had complied with all time-limits and formal requirements,
and as he had also met all other relevant general and particular
conditions. He had completed his legal training and had the
necessary professional experience. The decisions were unlawful
because they were based on an erroneous interpretation by the
defendant of
It was
contrary to the wording of the notice and the prohibition on
discrimination on grounds of nationality under Article 12 EC
to treat university final examinations and the second state
examination [Staatsexamen] as being equivalent. No higher stan-
dards should be imposed on German lawyers than on graduates
from other Member States.

the conditions set out

in the notice.

Action brought on 29 December 2003 by Ulrike Eppe
against European Parliament

(Case T-439/03)

(2004/C 94/126)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Parliament was brought against
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 29
December 2003 by Ulrike Eppe,
in Hanover
(Germany), represented by D. Rogalla, lawyer.

residing

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant's decisions of 24 February 2003, 28

April 2003 and 17 September 2003;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

(Case T-412/03)

(2004/C 94/125)

Pleas in law and main arguments:

(Language of the case: German)

The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those raised in
Case T-412/03 (Wille v Parliament, not yet published).

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16
December 2003 by Angelo Wille, residing in Brussels, repre-
sented by D. Rogalla, lawyer.