Case T-179/04: Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Siegfried Krahl against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-08-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses, housing, regulations for civil servants

C 201/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.8.2004

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

MPS Group Inc.

The Community trade mark appli-
cation No 778795 ‘MODIS’
for
services in class 35 (employment
recruitment
agency
consultancy
payroll
preparation services,...), class 41
(staff
training services) and class
42 (psychometric testing)

services,

services,

Modis Distribuiçao Centralizada
SA

Portuguese

trade mark
The
‘MODIS’ for services in class 35
(Advertising,
business manage-
ment and business administration)

Rejection of the Community trade
mark application for classes 35
and 41 and admission of
the
application for class 42.

Annulment of the Decision of the
Opposition Division as it upheld
the opposition with respect to the
services applied for in Class 41,
remittal of
the case for further
prosecution to the examiner and
rejection of
the
remainder.

the appeal

for

— Annul

the Commission's decision to recover

the daily
subsistence allowances paid to the applicant during the
period when temporary accommodation was made avail-
able to him;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, took up his post
in the Commission's delegation to Zagreb on 2 February 2002
and until 19 September 2002 stayed in accommodation made
available by the Commission. By the contested decision, the
Commission decided to recover the daily subsistence allow-
ances paid to the applicant during that period on the ground
that he was not entitled to them, as he had stayed in an apart-
ment provided by the Commission.

In support of his action, the applicant claims that there has
been a breach of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regula-
tions. He alleges that the Commission made the accommoda-
tion available only on a temporary basis, without security of
tenure, and that he was therefore not prevented from receiving
the daily subsistence allowances. He further claims that there
has been an infringement of the principle of legitimate expecta-
tions, on the ground that the Commission gave him specific
assurances concerning payment of the daily subsistence allow-
ances while he was staying in the apartment in question.

Pleas in law:

Violation of Articles 8(1)(a) and
8(1)(b)of Council Regulation No
40/94 on the Community Trade
Mark (1)
the
in deciding
services concerned were similar.

that

Action brought on 25 May 2004 by Spa Monopole,
Compagnie Fermière de Spa against the Office for Harmo-
nisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM)

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

Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1)

(Case T-186/04)

(2004/C 201/40)

(Language of the case: French)

Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Siegfried Krahl against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-179/04)

(2004/C 201/39)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25
May 2004 by Spa Monopole, Compagnie Fermière de Spa,
established in Spa (Belgium), represented by L. de Brouwer, E.
Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers.

Spaform Limited was also a party to the proceedings before the
Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 May 2004 by Siegfried Krahl,
residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by Sébastien Orlandi,
Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

— annul Decision R 0827/2002-4 of 25 February 2004 of the
Fourth Board of Appeal dismissing the appeal by the appli-
cant against the Opposition Division's decision to dismiss
the opposition brought by the applicant against registration
of the word mark ‘SPAFORM’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and
11.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order OHIM to pay the costs.