Case T-488/04: Action brought on 15 December 2004 by Falcon Sporting Goods AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2005-03-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), public morality, sports equipment, trade-mark law

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/33

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant's Decisions of 20 March 2004, impli-
edly rejecting the application for assistance under Article
24 of the Staff Regulations made by the applicant on 20
November 2003, and of 13 September 2004, rejecting the
complaint lodged by the applicant;

— annul Decision R 176/2004-2 of

the Second Board of

Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2004;

— order OHIM to pay all the costs.

— make an appropriate order as to costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments:

On 20 November 2003, the applicant, a Commission official,
made an application for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff
Regulations alleging that he was the victim of mental harass-
ment on the part of the administration of his institution. By his
action, he seeks the annulment of the implied decision rejecting
that application and the decision rejecting his complaint
submitted under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

The applicant claims that the defendant did not take action on
his complaints regarding alleged irregularities in the verification
and checking of Community joint
financing but, on the
contrary, precisely because of his complaints, adopted an atti-
tude designed to intimidate him and to compromise his career.
In support of his action, he relies on Articles 12a, 21a, 22b
and 24 of the Staff Regulations, the provisions of the Financial
Regulation, the principle of sound financial management and
the protection of the financial interests of the Commission, the
principle of fair and equal treatment of staff and a manifest
error of assessment on the part of the Commission.

Community trade mark
sought:

Word mark ‘BIN LADIN’ for goods
and services in Classes 9, 12, 14,
18, 25, 28, 35 and 41 – Applica-
tion No 2 223 907.

Decision of
iner:

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the exam-

Refusal to register.

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal.

Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of
Council Regulation No 40/94. The
applicant claims that registration
of the mark in question would not
be contrary to either public policy
or accepted principles of morality.

Action brought on 15 December 2004 by Falcon Sporting
Goods AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Action brought on 15 December 2004 by Falcon Sporting
Goods AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-488/04)

(2005/C 57/57)

(Case T-487/04)

(2005/C 57/56)

(Language in which the application was lodged: French)

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 15
December 2004 by Falcon Sporting Goods AG, established in
Zug (Switzerland), represented by Jörg Weigell, lawyer.

(Language in which the application was lodged: French)

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 15
December 2004 by Falcon Sporting Goods AG, established in
Zug (Switzerland), represented by Jörg Weigell, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision R 177/2004-2of

the Second Board of

Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2004;

— order OHIM to pay all the costs.

C 57/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.3.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark
sought:

Figurative mark ‘BIN LADIN’
in
Arabic characters for goods and
services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 18,
25, 28, 35 and 41 – Application
No 2 224 160.

— in any event, award EUR 30 000 in respect of compensa-
tion for the non-material and material damage suffered by
the applicant, that sum being provisionally assessed on an
equitable basis;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

the exam-

Refusal to register.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Decision of
iner:

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal.

Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of
Council Regulation No 40/94. The
applicant claims that registration
of the mark in question would not
be contrary to either public policy
or accepted principles of morality.

Action brought on 22 December 2004 by Wineke Neir-
inck against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case T-494/04)

(2005/C 57/58)

(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 22 December 2004 by Wineke
Neirinck, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Georges
Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of which the applicant became aware at
the meeting of the OIB.1 unit (Office for Infrastructure and
Logistics – Brussels – implementation of buildings policy)
of 4 March 2004, by which another candidate had been
selected for the post of lawyer in the sector of buildings
policy in the OIB for which the applicant had applied;

— annul

the

confirmatory decision of 9 March 2004
that her application had been

informing the applicant
rejected;

The applicant, at the time a temporary agent at the Commis-
sion in the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics – Brussels
(OIB), applied for the post of lawyer in the sector of buildings
policy in the OIB. By her action, she seeks annulment of the
decisions rejecting her application and appointing another
person to the post
in question and compensation for the
alleged non-material and material damage she suffered.

In support of her action, the applicant relies on the failure to
have regard for the interests of the service and infringement of
the general principles of impartiality, objectivity, non-discrimi-
nation, transparency and the obligation to give reasons and an
abuse of due process. The applicant submits that the selection
of the person appointed to the post in question was decided
without any statutory procedure and without being preceded
by any comparative examination of the merits of that person
with those of the applicant. In the same context, the applicant
alleges a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the
duty to have regard for the interests of officials and good
administration. The applicant also alleges infringement of the
general principle of equal treatment by reference to the fact
that all the temporary and auxiliary agents of OIB, whose
contracts expired on 1 May 2004, remained in OIB beyond
that date with the exception of the applicant.

Action brought on 23 December 2004 by Belfass against
the Council of the European Union

(Case T-495/04)

(2005/C 57/59)

(Language of the case: French)

— annul the subsequent decision of 27 April 2004 informing
the applicant that she had not passed the oral test and thus
confirming the appointment of another person;

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 23 December 2004 by Belfass, established in
Brussels (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer.