Case T-357/04: Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Marguerite Chetcuti against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-11-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), equal treatment, recruitment, servant (EU)

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/21

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Opposition dismissed.

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Appeal partially upheld, the trade
mark applied for being refused for
products in Classes 32 and 33.

Pleas in law:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

DATEV eG.

tools,

The German and Community
word marks ‘DATEV’
for goods
and services in Classes 9, 16, 35,
41 and 42 (inter alia, office organi-
sation
data
processing for others, providing of
training and tuition in the field of
data processing
and planning,
developing, establishing and main-
tenance of electronic data proces-
sing programmes).

electronic

Action brought on 13 August 2004 by DATAC AG against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-341/04)

(2004/C 284/42)

(Language in which the application was submitted: German)

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 13
August 2004 by DATAC AG, Passau (Germany), represented
by K. Zingsheim, lawyer.

DATEV eG, Nuremberg (Germany), was also a party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Pleas in law:

Rejection of the opposition.

Annulment of the decision of the
Opposition Division and referral
the proceedings back to the
of
Opposition Division.

— infringement of Articles 8(1)(b)
and 53(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94;

— misapplication of Article 8(5)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94;

— no likelihood of

confusion

between the opposed marks.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Marguerite Chetcuti
against Commission of the European Communities

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 12 May
2004 in Case R 176/2002-4;

— reject the opposition entered by DATEV eG;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Community trade mark
sought:

The applicant.

for
The word mark ‘DATAC’
goods and services in Classes 9,
16, 23 and 42 (inter alia, computer
hardware and parts and computer
software, printed matter, business
affairs and rental and licensing of
computer hardware and software)
— Application No 665 455.

(Case T-357/04)

(2004/C 284/43)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 31 August 2004 by Marguerite
Chetcuti, residing in Zejtun (Malta), represented by Marc-Albert
Lucas, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare unlawful point III of competition notice COM/P A/

04 of 6 April 2004;

— Annul the decision of 22 June 2004 of the competition
selection board rejecting her candidature in reliance on that
provision;

C 284/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.11.2004

— Annul the subsequent acts of the competition procedure,
which are unlawful as a consequence of the unlawfulness of
the competition notice and of the contested decision,
in
particular:

Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2004 in Case R 919/2002-
2;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— the list adopted by the selection board of candidates
meeting the conditions fixed by the notice of competi-
tion,

Pleas in law and main arguments:

— the Commission decision determining on that basis the

number of posts to be filled,

Community trade mark
applied for:

— the list of suitable candidates adopted by the selection

board on completion of its task, and

— the appointment decisions taken by the appointing

authority on that basis;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In support of the form of order sought, the applicant claims
that the notice of competition infringes Articles 4, 27 and
29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations and also the principle of equal
treatment in that excludes members of the auxiliary staff from
the competition. She also claims that the notice infringes Arti-
cles 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations and is contrary to the
interests of the service and the principle of equal treatment on
the ground that it requires a period of service as an official,
temporary servant or member of the temporary staff and thus
excludes local staff, like the applicant.

Action brought on 30 August 2004 by Georg Neumann
GmbH, Berlin against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-358/04)

(2004/C 284/44)

(Language of the case: German)

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 30
August 2004 by Georg Neumann GmbH, Berlin, Berlin
(Germany), represented by R. Böhm, lawyer.

Three-dimensional trade mark in
the form of a microphone head
grill in respect of goods in Class 9
(Microphones) — Application No
493 643

Decision
before
Appeal:

contested
the Board of

Refusal of the application by the
examiner

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal

— The

contested

decision
infringes Article 7(1) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 40/94.

— The trade mark applied for is

distinctive.

Action brought on 30 August 2004 by The British Aggre-
gates Association Limited, Healy Bros. Limited and DK
Trotter & Sons Limited against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-359/04)

(2004/C 284/45)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 August 2004 by The British
Aggregates Association Limited, Lanark (United Kingdom)
Healy Bros. Limited, Middleton, County Cork (Ireland) and DK
Trotter & Sons, Manorhamilton, County Leitrim (Ireland) repre-
sented by C. Pouncey, Solicitor and L. Van Den Hende, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2004) 1614 fin of 7 May

2004 ‘State Aid N 2/2004 UK/ Aggregates Levy’;

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
(Trade

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs in the

present proceedings.