Case T-33/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  25 January 2006  — Weißenfels v Parliament (Officials — Remuneration — Dependent child allowance — Double allowance for a handicapped child — Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations — Deduction of an allowance of like nature)
Date: 2006-03-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action for annulment (EU), family benefit

C 74/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.3.2006

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 January
2006 — Weißenfels v Parliament

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)
initially D.
Schennen, subsequently D. Schennen and G. Schneider, Agents)

(represented by:

(Case T-33/04) (1)

(Officials — Remuneration — Dependent child allowance —
Double allowance for a handicapped child — Article 67(2) of
the Staff Regulations — Deduction of an allowance of like
nature)

(2006/C 74/35)

Language of the case: German

Action

brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
OHIM of 4 August 2004 (Case R 771/1999-2), in relation to
the registration of a figurative mark consisting of the represen-
tation of a rectangular tablet

Parties:

Operative part of the judgment

Applicant: Roderich Weißenfels (Luxembourg) (represented by:
H. Arend, lawyer)

The Court:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Knudsen, U.
Rösslein and E. Ecker, agents)

1. Dismisses the application.

Application for

Annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 26 June 2003
deducting from the double dependent child allowance granted
to the applicant under Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations an
allowance of like nature received from another source.

(1) OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

Operative part of the Judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 January
2006 — Henkel v OHIM

(Case T-398/04) (1)

(Community trade mark — Figurative mark — Red and
white rectangular tablet with an oval blue centre — Absolute
ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
40/94 — Absence of distinctive character)

(2006/C 74/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties:

Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005
— Arizona Chemical BV and Others v Commission

(Case T-369/03) (1)

(Directive 67/548/EEC — Refusal to declassify rosin as a
dangerous substance — Action for annulment — Act not
open to challenge — Action for damages — Limitation —
Plea of illegality — Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 74/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties:

Applicants: Arizona Chemical BV (Huizen, Netherlands),
Eastman Belgium BVBA (Kallo, Belgium), Resinall Europe
BVBA (Bruges, Belgium), and Cray Valley Iberica, SA (Madrid)
(represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by X. Lewis and F. Simonetti, Agents)

Applicant: Henkel KGaA (Dusseldorf, Germany) (represented by:
C. Osterrieth, lawyer)

Interverners in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (repre-
sented by T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)