Case T-423/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  5 October 2005  — Bunker & BKR v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition — Application for a Community figurative mark containing the verbal element  B.K.R.  — Earlier national word mark BK RODS — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
Date: 2005-11-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing industry, footwear industry, trade-mark law

C 296/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.11.2005

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 2005
— Land Oberösterreich and Austria v Commission

Defendant(s): Court of Justice of the European Communities
(represented by: M. Schauss, Agent)

(Joined Cases T-366/03 and T-235/04) (1)

(Approximation of laws — National provisions derogating
from a harmonisation measure — Ban on the use of geneti-
cally modified organisms in Upper Austria — Conditions for
application of Article 95(5) EC)

(2005/C 296/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Subject-matter of the case

Firstly, an application for annulment of the decisions of the
appointing authority of 10 April and 6 June 2003 declaring
that the applicant was not affected by complete and permanent
invalidity making it impossible for her to carry out duties
involved in a post in her career bracket and requesting her to
return to work on a half-time basis on medical grounds for a
total period of 13 weeks. Secondly, an application for the
payment of 1 EUR as token damages for the non-material loss
allegedly suffered.

Applicant(s): Land Oberösterreich (represented by: F. Mitten-
dorfer,
lawyer) and Republic of Austria (represented by:
H. Hauer and H. Dossi, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Patakia and U. Wölker, Agents)

1. The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.

Application for

annulment of Commission Decision 2003/653/EC of 2
September 2003 relating to national provisions on banning the
use of genetically modified organisms in the region of Upper
Austria notified by the Republic of Austria pursuant to Article
95(5) of the EC Treaty (OJ 2003 L 230, p. 34)

2. Each party shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 47, 21.2.2004

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the actions;

2) Orders the applicants to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2005
— Fischer v Court of Justice

(Case T-404/03) (1)

(Officials — Action for annulment — Invalidity — Half-
time on medical grounds — Statement of reasons — Inva-
lidity committee — Action for damages)

(2005/C 296/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Pia Fischer (Konz-Roscheid, Germany) (represented
by: C Marhuenda, lawyer)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 2005
— Bunker & BKR v OHIM

(Case T-423/04) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition — Application for a
Community figurative mark containing the verbal element
‘B.K.R.’ — Earlier national word mark BK RODS — Likeli-
hood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
40/94)

(2005/C 296/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant(s): Bunker & BKR, SL (Almansa, Spain) (represented
by: J. Astiz Suárez, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo,
Agent,)

Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Marine
Stock Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands, United Kingdom)
(represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/23

Application for

annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
OHIM of 30 June 2004 (Case R 0458/2002-4) concerning
opposition proceedings between Bunker & BKR, SL and Marine
Stock Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office
(Trade Marks and

for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Designs) (OHIM) of 30 June 2004 (Case R 0458/2002-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred

by the applicant;

3. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 September 2005
— Ehcon v Commission

(Case T-140/04) (1)

(Public service contracts — Call for tenders — Rejection of
liability — Limitation
tenderer's offer — Non-contractual

period — Inadmissibility — Action clearly unfounded)

(2005/C 296/50)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant(s): Adviesbureau Ehcon BV (Reeuwijk, Netherlands)
(represented by: M. Goedkoop, lawyer)

Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 September 2005
— Krahl v Commission

(Case T-358/03) (1)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: L. Parpala and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

(Officials — Service in a non-member country — Accommo-
dation expenses — Actions — Time-limits — Mandatory —
Late action — Inadmissible)

(2005/C 296/49)

Language of the case: French

Application for

Parties

Applicant(s): Sigfried Krahl (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: S.
Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchel, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents)

Application for

annulment of the Commission's decision refusing to reimburse
all
the accommodation expenses incurred by the applicant
following his posting to Zagreb

Operative part of the Order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

2. Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.2004.

compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appli-
cant because of the rejection of its tender under a call for
tenders, published on 10 April 1996 (OJ 1996 C 232, p. 35),
for services in relation to Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15
July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human
consumption (OJ 1980 L 229, p. 11).

Operative part of the Order

1. The action is dismissed as partly inadmissible and partly clearly

without foundation.

2. The applicant is to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 146, 29.5.2004.