Case C-197/05 P: Appeal brought on 4 May 2005 by Energy Technologies ET SA against the order made on 28 February 2005 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-445/04 between Energy Technologies ET SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Aparellaje eléctrico, SL
Date: 2005-10-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), appeal, electronic equipment, spare part, thermal equipment, trade-mark law

C 243/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.10.2005

Appeal brought on 4 May 2005 by Energy Technologies
ET SA against the order made on 28 February 2005 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in Case T-445/04 between Energy
Technologies ET SA and the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM),
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Aparellaje eléc-
trico, SL

Appeal brought on 18 May 2005 by Osman Ocalan, on
behalf of the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) and Serif
Vanley, on behalf of the Kurdistan National Congress
(KNK) against the order made on 15 February 2005 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-229/02, between Kurdi-
stan Workers' Party (PKK)
and Kurdistan National
Congress (KNK) and the Council of the European Union,
supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and by the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-197/05 P)

(2005/C 243/03)

(Case C-229/05 P)

(2005/C 243/04)

(Language of the case: English)

(Language of the case: English)

An appeal against the order made on 28 February 2005 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in case T-445/04 (1) between Energy Technolo-
gies ET SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to
the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and
Designs) being Aparellaje eléctrico, SL, was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 May 2005
by Energy Technologies ET SA, established in Fribourg (Swit-
zerland), represented by Ms A. Boman.

The Appellant

1) claims that the Court annuls the contested decision and
remands the case to the Court of First Instance for trial of
the trade mark matter.

An appeal against the order made on 15 February 2005 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-229/02 (1), between the Kurdistan
Worker's Party (PKK) and the Kurdistan National Congress
(KNK) and the Council of the European Union, supported by
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and by
the Commission of the European Union, was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 May
2005 by Osman Ocalan, on behalf of the Kurdistan Worker's
Party (PKK) and Serif Vanley, on behalf of
the Kurdistan
National Congress, established in Brussels, Belgium, represented
by M. Muller and E. Grieves, barristers,
instructed by J.G.
Pierce, solicitor.

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

1. declare that the Application of Osman Ocalan on behalf of
the organisation formerly known as the PKK is admissible;

2) requests further respite of six months in order to be able to
evaluate the need for further substantiation of this appeal
and possibly for submittance of expert opinion.

2. declare that the Application of Serif Vanly on behalf of the

organisation known as the KNK is admissible;

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In the appealed decision the Court of First Instance dismissed
the application on the grounds that Energy Technologies ET SA
was not represented by a lawyer pursuant to Article 19 of the
Statute of the Court of Justice.

The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance has misin-
terpreted Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and
that its finding that the appellant was not represented by a
lawyer within the terms of that Article is incorrect.

(1) OJ C 182, 23.07.2005, p. 36

3. make an order
proceedings.

for costs

relating to the admissibility

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The First Applicant appeals the Ruling on the following
grounds:

It is submitted that the ruling is erroneous as the Court of First
Instance had already accepted that the first applicant existed
and had the requisite capacity to institute proceedings, nomi-
nate legal representatives, and respond to pleadings. On the
face of the papers the first applicant's power of attorney plainly
complied with Article 44 of the rules of procedure of the Court
of First Instance governing such powers. The said power was
neither contested by the defendant nor the Court when it
communicated the application to the defendant in accordance
with the normal rules governing receipt of a valid power of
attorney.