Action brought on 12 February 2004 by S.A. Spa Monopole against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, action for annulment (EU), publication, trade-mark law, travel agency

C 94/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.4.2004

Action brought on 18 February 2004 by Christos Gogos
against the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 12 February 2004 by S.A. Spa Mono-
pole against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-66/04)

(2004/C 94/156)

(Language of the Case: Greek)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 February 2004 by Christos
Gogos, resident in Waterloo, Belgium, represented by Kharis
Tagaras, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decisions, namely the decision to clas-
sify him in Grade A 7 following his success in internal
competition COM//A/17/96 and the Commission's rejection
dated 24 November 2003 of the his complaint under No R/
323/03;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

(Case T-67/04)

(2004/C 94/157)

(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 12
February 2004 by S.A. Spa Monopole, Spa, Belguim), repre-
sented by Mr L. de Brouwer, Mr E. Cornu, Mr E. De Gryse and
Ms D. Moreau, lawyers.

Spa-Finders Travel Arrangements Ltd., was also a party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
the Internal Market of 10

Office for Harmonisation of
December 2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

— order the OHIM to pay the costs

In 1997 the applicant, who is a Commission official, took part
in an internal competition for promotion from Category B to
Category A, but was unsuccessful in the oral test. In an action
Instance (1)the decision
brought before the Court of First
rejecting him was annulled; he was invited to take part in a
new written test, but failed again. He brought fresh proceedings
second rejection (2). The parties
against
settled these
proceedings on the basis that the applicant would be invited to
a fresh (third) oral test; he was successful in that test and was
entered on the reserve list. The applicant submitted an applica-
tion for a vacant Category A post and was selected. On 31
March 2003 he was informed that his classification upon
appointment was in Grade A 7.

this

The applicant challenges that classification, submitting that he
should have been classified in Grade A 6. He pleads first of all
that, if Article 233 EC, the principles of equal treatment, equity
and proper administration and the principle that officials
should have reasonable career prospects are applied correctly,
he has to be granted the rights, of whatever nature, which he
would have had if he had been entered on the competition
reserve list from the beginning, without his two prior actions.
He further pleads that both the Commission decision of
September 1983 on the criteria applicable to appointment in
grade and classification in step, as amended in 1996 in conse-
quence of the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case
T-17/95 (3), and the Commission's administrative guide on the
same subject require his initial classification in Grade A 6.

(1) Case T-95/98, OJ No C 258, 15.8.1998, p. 38.
(2) Case T-97/01, OJ No C 186, 30.6.2001, p. 17.
(3) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 1995
in Alexopoulou v Commission, OJ No C 315, 25.11.1995, p.
14.

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:

Spa-Finders Travel Arrangements
Ltd.

Word mark ‘SPA-FINDERS’ appli-
cation no. 354597 for goods and
services
in classes 16 (printed
publications etc.) and 39 (travel
agency services etc.)

S.A. Spa Monopole

Word trade mark ‘SPA’and ‘LES
THERMES DE SPA’ for goods in
Classes3, 32 and42

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division

Opposition dismissed

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board

Appeal rejected

Infringement of article 8(5)15 of
Regulation 40/94 (1)

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

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