Case T-364/05: Action brought on  26 September 2005  — Saint-Gobain Pam SA v OHIM
Date: 2005-12-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), piping, trade-mark law, tube

C 315/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.12.2005

Action brought on 26 September 2005 — Genette v
Commission

fundamental right to effective judicial protection and the duty
of assistance laid down in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.

(Case T-361/05)

(2005/C 315/26)

Language of the case: French

the applicant pleads that

the Belgian law of 1991
Lastly,
conflicts with Community law, specifically Article 11(2) of
Annex VIII and the principle of equal treatment.

Parties

Applicant(s): Genette (Gorze, France)
Lucas, lawyer)

(represented by: M.-A.

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 26 September 2005 — Saint-Gobain
Pam SA v OHIM

(Case T-364/05)

(2005/C 315/27)

Form of order sought

Language in which the application was lodged: French

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

— annul the decision of the Head of the ‘Pensions’ Unit of 25
January 2005 rejecting the applicant's application of 31
the transfer of his pension rights
October 2004 for
acquired in Belgium (No D/1106/2004);

— annul the decision of the Director General of the ADMIN
DG of 10 June 2005 dismissing the applicant's complaint
of 22 April 2005 against the decision of the Head of the
‘Pensions’ Unit of 2 February 2005 rejecting his application
of 31 October 2004;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following an application by the applicant, a Commission offi-
cial, the pension rights he had acquired in Belgium were trans-
ferred to the Community scheme in 2002, in accordance with
the provisions of a Belgian law on that subject adopted in
1991. In 2003, Belgium adopted a new law governing those
transfers, whose provisions, according to the applicant, were
more advantageous for him.

The 1991 law provided for the possibility to withdraw the
transfer application, with the institution's agreement. The appli-
cant therefore submitted an application for the Commission to
record its agreement on the withdrawal of the application he
had submitted under the regime governed by the 1991 law, so
that he might,
submit a new application
governed by the 2003 law. That application was rejected by
the contested decision, on the ground that the Community
provisions do not provide for the possibility to withdraw an
application.

subsequently,

By his action, the applicant challenges the rejection of his
application. He points out a number of obvious errors in the
assessment of the subject of his application, the final nature of
the decisions called into question by his application, the exis-
tence of new and substantial
for
submitting the application. He also alleges infringement of
Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, and of the
general provisions for its implementation.
the
the contested decisions infringe his
applicant submits that

facts and the time-limit

In addition,

Parties

Applicant: Saint-Gobain Pam SA (Nancy, France) (represented
by: J. Blanchard, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of
OHIM: Propamsa SA

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision given on 15 April 2005 by the Fourth
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Saint-Gobain Pam SA

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘PAM PLUVIAL’ for
goods in Class 6 (‘pipes and tubes of metal or based on metal,
pipes and tubes of cast iron, fittings of metal for the aforesaid
goods’) and Class 17 (‘fittings, not of metal, for rigid pipes and
tubes, not of metal’).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Propamsa SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration
No 737 992 of the semi-figurative mark ‘PAM PAM’, for goods
in Class 19 (‘construction materials’), Spanish trade mark regis-
tration No 120 075 of the word mark ‘PAM’ for goods in
Class 19 (‘cements’) and International trade mark registration
No 463 089 ‘PAM’ for goods in Class 1 (‘adhesive substances
destined for industry’) and Class 19 (‘materials for construction
(non-metallic), wrought or unwrought’).

10.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/15

Decision of the Opposition Division: upheld the opposition and
rejected the application for registration.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissed the appeal.

Pleas in law:

Infringement of the principle of continuity in terms of their
functions between the various departments of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market in that a decision that a
party appearing before the authorities ruling at first instance
which has failed to provide evidence as to matters of fact or
law within the prescribed time-limits cannot, pursuant
to
Article 74(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 on the Com-
munity trade mark, rely on such evidence before the Board of
Appeal is contrary to that principle.

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of that Regulation.

Action brought on 26 September 2005 — Mische/Parlia-
ment

(Case T-365/05)

(2005/C 315/28)

Language of the case: English

— grant the award of damages with (i) Aintérêts de retard@,
compensation for his prejudice to his career, and (ii) other
damages in form of a legal and regular pay, notably the
the transitional provision contained in
application of
Article 21 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation in force as
of 1 May 2004 or, alternatively, the lowering of contribu-
tions to the pension scheme based on the principle of equal
pay. These rights will have to be duly evaluated at a later
stage and are now evaluated, provisionally and ex aequo et
bono, at a minimum of 10 000 euros per year;

— order that the Parliament pays all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official appointed after the entry into force of
the new Staff Regulations on 1st May 2004, but from a reserve
list drawn up on the basis of a competition organised before
that date, contests his appointment grade. He invokes the same
pleas and arguments he had already invoked in Case T-288/
05 (1).

(1) OJ C 229, 17/09/05, p. 35

Action brought on 23 September 2005 — UPC France v
Commission

(Case T-367/05)

(2005/C 315/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) [represented by:
G. Vandersanden, L. Levi, lawyers]

Defendant(s): European Parliament

Parties

Applicant(s): UPC France Holding BV (Schiphol-Rijk, Nether-
lands) (represented by: M.D. Powell and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Form of order sought

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

— Order the cancellation of

the grading given on the 4
October 2004 in the appointment decision of the Nomi-
nating Authority which was to take effect 16 November to
grade him on his recruitment to DG Competition as ‘junior
lawyer’ at category A*, grade 6, step 1, implying the rein-
statement of all his rights as deriving from a legal and
regular employment, i.e. a legal and regular grading as of
16 November 2004, which means at minimum an A7/3
grading (valid as of 1 November 2003) or its equivalent
according to Articles 1-11 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regu-
lations (A*8/3);

Form of order sought

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

— annul Commission Decision State Aid No 382/2004 —

France;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.