Case T-72/05: Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Deutsche Telekom AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2005-05-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), telecommunications industry, trade-mark law

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/23

2. order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant the
sum of EUR 30 000 in respect of compensation for the
non-material damage which she claims to have suffered,
increased by the statutory interest in force in the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg from the date of the judgment to be
delivered until
the substantive
full and final settlement,
damage being reserved;

3. order the European Parliament
incurred in the proceedings.

to pay all of

the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant had brought an action against the decision of the
selection board in Competition EUR/151/98. By judgment
delivered by the Court of First Instance on 5 March 2003 in
Case T-24/01, that decision was set aside. Following that annul-
ment, the Parliament reopened the competition and the selec-
tion board resumed its deliberations. By the decision contested
in the present case, the selection board for the competition
decided not to place the applicant on the list of successful
candidates.

In support of her action, the applicant alleges a breach of
Article 233 EC, maintenance of discriminatory treatment and
infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate
expectations.

Action brought on 4 February 2005 by SP Entertainment
Development GmbH against the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case T-44/05)

(2005/C 115/44)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 February 2005 by SP Entertain-
ment Development GmbH, Norderfriedrichskoog (Germany),
represented by C. Demleitner, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Commission to pay the necessary costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the
contested decision the Commission called upon
Germany to reclaim a loan which was granted to a predecessor
company of the applicant by an associated company of the
City of Bremen. The applicant claims that this decision was
based on the unfounded assumption of the Commission that
the loan in question had not yet been repaid. According to the
applicant, repayment had already been made by means of
transfer of a stake in the company to which the loan was
granted to the company which granted the loan. This repay-
ment by means of ‘payment instead of performance’ does not
constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC that is
contrary to Community law since the value of the assigned
stake amounts at least to the sum of the loan. Additionally,
interest was paid up to 31 December 2003. From this date the
applicant did not have to pay any interest since the transfer of
the stake was delayed due to reasons for which the applicant
was not responsible.

Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Deutsche
Telekom AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-72/05)

(2005/C 115/45)

(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 17
February 2005 by Deutsche Telekom AG, Bonn, Germany,
represented by J.-C. Gaedertz and D.R. Marschollek, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 15
December 2004;

— annul Commission Decision D/57536 of 20 October 2004;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

C 115/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.5.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark
sought:

Decision of
iner:

the Exam-

42

(Electric

The word mark 'Telekom Global
Net'
in
for goods and services
Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41
instruments,
and
printed matter, advertising, finan-
cial and real estate affairs, telecom-
and
munications,
storage,
computer
education,
programming…) — Application
No 2 168 169.

transport

Refusal of
almost
services in Classes 9, 38 and 42.

application for
and
the goods

the
all of

Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24
February 2005 by Omega, S.A., established in Bienne (Swit-
zerland) represented by P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocon.

Omega Engineering, Inc., established in Stamford, Connecticut
(USA) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated 10

December 2004 in case R 330/2002-2;

— Order that the Office shall bear the costs.

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

character

— The mark applied for displays
no descriptive
in
and
relation to the goods
services in Classes 9, 38 and
42 for the purposes of Article
7(1)(c) of Council Regulation
(EC) No 40/94.

— The mark applied for has suffi-
cient
character
distinctive
within the meaning of Article
7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
40/94.

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

The applicant

Community trade mark
concerned:

Figurative mark OMEGA for
goods and services in classes 3, 9,
14, 16, 25, 28, 35, 37, 38, 41
and 42 application No 225 771

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

Trade mark or
cited in opposition:

sign

Omega Engineering Inc.

and

figurative
National word
marks OMEGA, MICROMEGA,
OMEGA.COM,
OMEGASOFT,
OMEGANET for goods in classes
1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17,
18, 35, 41, and 42

Action brought on 24 February 2005 by Omega, S.A.
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
against

Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Refusal of registration for goods
and services in classes 9 and 42

(Case T-90/05)

(2005/C 115/46)

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board

Appeal dismissed

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

(Language in which the application was lodged: English)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-

munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Market