Case T-330/05: Action brought on  2 September 2005  — Aqua-Terra Bioprodukt v OHIM
Date: 2005-11-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), organic product, trade-mark law, water treatment

C 296/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.11.2005

Action brought on 2 September 2005 — Aqua-Terra
Bioprodukt v OHIM

(Case T-330/05)

(2005/C 296/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 due to an erroneous assess-
ment of the likelihood of confusion of the two marks in oppo-
sition. Consideration was not taken of the individual goods and
their similarity as required and a general evaluation was carried
out instead.

Parties

Action brought on 5 September 2005 by Susanne
Sorensen v Commission of the European Communities

Applicant(s): Aqua-Terra
Germany) (represented by: P.A. Müller, lawyer)

Bioprodukt GmbH (Griesheim,

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
of OHIM: De Ceuster Meststoffen NV (Sint-Katelijne-Waver,
Belgium)

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in appeal
proceedings No R0984/2004-1, dated 1 July 2005;

— in the alternative, set aside and annul the decision of the
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market in appeal proceedings No R0984/2004-
1, dated 1 July 2005, in so far as ‘biological substances,
namely preparations for conditioning, reconstructing and
recultivating sewage or for use in sewage treatment plants’
are concerned.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘aqua terra’
for goods in Classes 1 and 3 — Registration No 1 480 243

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: De
Ceuster Meststoffen NV

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘AQUA-
TERRA’ for goods in Classes 1, 5 and 31

the Opposition Division: Upholds the opposition
Decision of
which was restricted in relation to the goods in Class 1 and
refusal to register all the goods in Class 1

Decision of
appeal

the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant's

(Case T-335/05)

(2005/C 296/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties:

Applicant(s): Susanne Sorensen (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— annul the decision appointing the applicant to the post of
assistant, in that it fixes her classification in grade B*3, step
2;

— annul the decision to cancel all the points constituting the

applicant's ‘rucksack’;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, had initially been
classified in grade C2. she was successful in open competition
level B5/B4) and was appointed, by the
COM/B/1/02 (at
contested decision of 5 August 2004, in grade B*3, step 2. In
support of her action, the applicant claims that there has been
a breach of the competition notice and also of the vacancy
notice, in so far as both notices provided for classification in
grade B5 or B4. She claims, in the same context, that there has
been a breach of Articles 4, 5, 29 and 31 of the Staff Regula-
tions. Relying on the fact that some successful candidates in the
competition were appointed before 1 May 2004 (the date of
the entry into force of the amendments to the Staff Regula-
tions) in grade B5 or B4, which correspond to grade B*5 or
B*6 under the new denomination, the applicant also claims
that there has been a breach of the principle of equal treatment
and non-discrimination. She also contends that the principle
that an official should have reasonable career prospects and the
principle of protection of legitimate expectations have been
breached, since she had a legitimate expectation of being
appointed in grade B*5 or B*4. In that context, she claims that
Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which also
breaches the principle of legal certainty, is unlawful.