Case T-379/05: Action brought on  14 October 2005  — Zuffa/OHIM
Date: 2006-01-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/23

— annul the decision awarding and calculating the applicant's
pension rights, adopted on 31 January 2005 by the Head of
the Pensions unit of the Office for the Administration and
Payment of Individual Entitlements,

cative calculation of his pension rights which he carried out
with the assistance of an IT tool
(‘calculette’), which the
Commission provided to staff. According to the applicant, the
‘calculette’ envisaged that the increase in question would be
taken into account when determining the pension.

— to the extent

the
increase in basic salary provided for in Article 7(4) of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations,

fails to take into account

that

it

— to the extent that the figure 0.9982852 appears instead
of 1 in the classification at the termination of service,

— to the extent that it establishes the pension classification

as A*16/03,

— annul the decision of 1 July 2005 adopted by the Director
General of the Directorate for Personnel and Administration
(ADMIN.B. 2 — SHS/amd — D (05)15121), which rejected
both of the applicant's complaints (No R/266/05 and R/
298/05),

Action brought on 14 October 2005 — Zuffa/OHIM

(Case T-379/05)

(2006/C 10/46)

Language of the case: English

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, former Deputy Director-General of the Commis-
sion's Legal Service, who retired in February 2005, was classi-
fied, before leaving the service, at grade A*16 and benefited,
until the end of 2004, from the increase in salary provided for
in Article 7(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. In accord-
ance with the amendments to the Staff Regulations which
entered into force on 1 May 2004, a multiplication factor of
0.9580274 was applicable to his basic salary, reflecting the
difference between the basic salary laid down for his grade and
step under the old and new Staff Regulations.

On 1 January 2005, the applicant reached the sixth step in his
grade. Since the basic salaries laid down for that step under the
old and new Staff Regulations are the same, the applicant takes
the view that the applicable multiplication factor should from
then on be ‘1’. However, a multiplication factor of 0.9982852
appeared, from that month onwards, both on his last salary
slip and in the decision awarding and calculating his pension
rights. In addition, the increase in salary provided for in Article
7(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations was not included in
his salary for the month of January 2005 and, consequently,
was not taken into account when determining his pension
rights, which were calculated on the basis of his salary for that
month. Finally, the decision determining the pension rights
classified the applicant at step 3, instead of step 6, in his grade.

In support of his action, the applicant claims infringement of
Article 2(2), of Article 7(4), and of Article 8(2) of Annex XIII to
the Staff Regulations. He also pleads infringement of his legiti-
mate expectations, allegedly arising from the result of an indi-

Applicant(s): Zuffa, LLC (Las Vegas, USA) [represented by: S.
Malynicz, Barrister, M. Blair, Solicitor]

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

Form of order sought

— The decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 8 August

2005 in Case R 24/2005-1 shall be annulled;

— the Office shall bear its own costs and pay those of the

applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ULTIMATE
FIGHTING’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 28 and
41 — application No 2 766 590

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application in respect of
all goods and services applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The term ULTIMATE FIGHTING, taken as a whole,
is not a generic or usual name in relation to all the claimed
goods and services. The Board of Appeal failed to adequately
analyse the whole mark in relation to all the goods and services
applied for.