Case T-275/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  9 November 2005  — Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Hi-FOCuS — Earlier national word mark FOCUS — Scope of the examination conducted by the Board of Appeal — Assessment of evidence produced before the Board of Appeal)
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 10/19

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action

Appeal chamber

(2006/C 10/36)

On 6 December 2005 the Court of First Instance decided, in
accordance with Article 12 of its Rules of Procedure, that for
the period from 12 December 2005 to 31 August 2007
appeals brought against decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal
are to be assigned, as soon as the application initiating proceed-
ings has been lodged and without prejudice to subsequent
application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to
an appeal chamber.

brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
OHIM of 5 February 2003 (Case R 370/2002 3), concerning
opposition proceedings between Biofarma SA and Bausch &
Lomb Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

The appeal chamber is to be composed of the President of the
Court of First Instance and of the Presidents of the Second,
Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers (all Extended Composition).

1. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) of 5 February 2003 (Case R 370/2002-3);

For the period from 12 December 2005 to 31 August 2007
the following are in consequence attached to the appeal
chamber sitting with five Judges:

Mr Vesterdorf, President, and Messrs Jaeger, Pirrung, Vilaras
and Legal, Judges.

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

the applicant;

3. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 158, 5.7.2003.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 November
2005 — Biofarma v OHIM

(Case T-154/03) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —
Earlier national word marks ARTEX — Application for
Community word mark ALREX — Relative ground for
refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 40/94)

(2006/C 10/37)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant(s): Biofarma SA (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France)
(repre-
sented by V. Gil Vega, A. Ruiz López and D. Gonzalez Maroto,
lawyers)

Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by W. Verburg and A.
Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Bausch &
Lomb Pharmaceuticals,
(Tampa, Florida, United States)
(represented by S. Klos, lawyer)

Inc.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 November
2005 — Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH v OHIM

(Case T-275/03) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for Community word mark Hi-FOCuS — Earlier
national word mark FOCUS — Scope of the examination
conducted by the Board of Appeal — Assessment of evidence
produced before the Board of Appeal)

(2006/C 10/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant(s): Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH (Munich, Germany)
(represented by: U. Gürtler, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl,
B. Müller and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
of OHIM: ECI Telecom Ltd (Petah Tikva, Israel)

C 10/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2006

Application for

Operative part of the judgment

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2003 (Case R 913/2001-4)
concerning opposition proceedings between Focus Magazin
Verlag GmbH and ECI Telecom Ltd,

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders each party to bear its own costs.

Operative part of the judgment

(1) OJ C 179 of 10.7.2004.

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) of 30 April 2003 (Case R 913/2001-4);

2. Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2005
— First Data Corp. and Others v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(1) OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.

(Case T-28/02) (1)

(Competition — Article 81 EC — Visa payment card scheme
— The ‘no-acquiring-without-issuing’ rule — Negative clear-
ance — Rule abolished during the proceedings — Legal
interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 November
2005 — Righini v Commission

(Case T-145/04) (1)

Parties

(2006/C 10/40)

Language of the case: English

(Officials — Temporary staff — Classification in grade and
in step — Classification in the higher career grade)

(2006/C 10/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Elisabetta Righini (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V. Joris and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, assisted by
D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Applicants: First Data Corp. (Wilmington, Delaware, USA), FDR
Ltd (Dover, Delaware, United States), and First Data Merchant
Services Corp. (Sunrise, Florida, USA) (represented by: initially,
P. Bos and M. Nissen, then P. Bos, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by:
initially, R. Wainwright, W. Wils and V. Superti,
then R. Wainwright and T. Christoforou, Agents)

Application for

annulment of the fifth indent of Article 1 of Commission Deci-
sion 2001/782/EC of 9 August 2001 relating to a proceeding
under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
Agreement (Case No COMP/29.373 — Visa International) (OJ
2001 L 293, p. 24)

Operative part of the Order

1. There is no need to adjudicate on this case.

Application for

2. The applicants and the Commission shall bear their own costs.

annulment of the Commission's decisions to classify the appli-
cant on her entry into service in Grade A7, step 3, whether as
a member of the temporary staff or as a probationary official,
and,
in so far as is necessary, annulment of the decision of
21 January 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint

(1) OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.