Case T-106/05: Action brought on 22 February 2005 by European Dynamics S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-05-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, services contract, software

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/29

Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Assembled
Investments (Proprietary) Limited against the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs)

Trade mark or
cited in opposition:

sign

for

goods

Community word mark
The
‘WATERFORD’
in
classes 3, 8, 11, 21, 24 and 34
(Perfumery products, essential oils;
cutlery;
lamps; articles of glass-
ware; …) — Community trade
mark No 397 521

(Case T-105/05)

(2005/C 115/52)

(Language in which the application was lodged: English)

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Rejection of the opposition

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Annulment of the contested deci-
sion and rejection of the applica-
tion

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b),
8(5) and 74(2) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 in that there is no
likelihood of confusion between
the marks and that
there is no
persuasive evidence that the earlier
mark would
detrimentally
be
affected or that an unfair advan-
tage would be taken.

Action brought on 22 February 2005 by European
Dynamics S.A. against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-106/05)

(2005/C 115/53)

(Language of the case: English)

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 28
February 2005 by Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Limited,
established in Stellenbosch (South Africa), represented by P.
Hagman, lawyer.

Pleas in law:

Waterford Wedgwood Plc, established in Waterford (Ireland)
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 15
December 2004 and establish that the applied Community
trade mark application No 1 438 860 ‘WATERFORD STEL-
LENBOSCH’ is not confusingly similar with the Community
trade mark registration No 397 521 ‘WATERFORD’;

— remit the case to OHIM for registration purposes;

— order the defendant OHIM and the opponent and co-defen-
dant Waterford Wedgwood Plc to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Community trade mark
concerned:

Assembled
(Propietary) Limited

Investments

The
figurative mark ‘Waterford
Stellenbosch’ for goods in class 33
including
beverages
(alcoholic
wines) — application
No
1 438 860

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

Waterford Wedgwood Plc

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 February 2005 by European
Dynamics S.A., established in Athens (Greece), represented by
N. Kostakopoulos, lawyer.

C 115/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.5.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission's decision not to short-list the appli-
filed in response to the International
cant's application,
Restricted Tender EuropeAid/117579/C/SV/TR for
the
‘Technical Assistance to improve the Information and
Communication Technology System in the State Institute of
Statistics of Turkey — Upgrading the Statistical System of
Turkey’ (1) and to short-list other candidates;

— annul the decision to reject the applicant's request to review
its decision communicated to the applicant by the Commis-
sion's letter dated 13 December 2004;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other
costs and expenses incurred in connection with this appli-
cation, even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant company filed an application in response to the
International Restricted Tender EuropeAid/
Commission's
117579/C/SV/TR for the ‘Technical Assistance to improve the
Information and Communication Technology System in the
State Institute of Statistics of Turkey — Upgrading the Statis-
tical System of Turkey’. By the contested decision the appli-
cant's application was not short-listed.

In support of its application to annul the contested decision the
the defendant violated Regulation
applicant contends that
the Financial Regulation (2) and the regulation
1488/1996,
applying it, as well as Directive 92/50 (3) by using evaluation
criteria, that were not well specified in the call for tenders.
According to the applicant,
if the Commission intended to
proceed to a comparative analysis of the candidates' capacities,
as it appears to have done, then it should have noted so in the
call for tenders.

The applicant also claims that the defendant committed mani-
fest errors of appreciation in the evaluation of the bid it had
submitted. The applicant contests the Commission's assessment
of its technical capacity.

The applicant finally submits that the Commission failed to
provide adequate reasons for its decision, in violation of Article
253 EC.

(1) OJ 2004/S 187-158886.
(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002
on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities, OJ L 248, 16/09/2002, p. 1.

(3) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coor-
dination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, OJ
L 209, 24/07/1992, p. 1.

Action brought on 22 February 2005 by François Muller
against the Court of Auditors of the European Commu-
nities

(Case T-107/05)

(2005/C 115/54)

(Language of the case: French)

the Court of Auditors of

An action against
the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 22 February 2005 by François
Muller, residing in Strasbourg (France), represented by Georges
Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the applicant's pension statement of May 2004, with
the effect of applying a correction coefficient at the level for
the capital of his country of residence or, at the very least, a
correction coefficient which would adequately reflect the
differences in the cost of living at the place where the appli-
cant
and therefore
expenditure
complying with the principle of equivalence;

is deemed to incur

2. order the Court of Auditors to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant puts forward pleas and
arguments identical to those put forward by the applicants in
Case T-35/05.

Action brought on 22 February 2005 by Suzy Frederic-
the European Economic and Social
Leemans against

Committee

(Case T-108/05)

(2005/C 115/55)

(Language of the case: French)

the European Economic

An action against
and Social
Committee was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 22 February 2005 by Suzy
Frederic-Leemans, residing in Lahas (France), represented by
G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, lawyers.