Case T-17/08 P: Appeal brought on 14 January 2008 by Marta Andreasen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 November 2007 in Case F-40/05, Andreasen v Commission
Date: 2008-01-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European civil service, Spain, action for annulment (EU), professional career, regulations for civil servants

C 64/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2008

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cloetta
Fazer AB (Ljungsbro, Sweden)

Appeal brought on 14 January 2008 by Marta Andreasen
against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered
on 8 November 2007 in Case F-40/05, Andreasen v
Commission

Form of order sought

— Totally alter the decision of the OHIM Fourth Board of
Appeal, Case R 149/2006-4, rendered on 7 November 2007
and notified on 9 November 2007;

(Case T-17/08 P)

(2008/C 64/97)

Language of the case: French

— annul

the decision of

the OHIM Cancellation Division,
rendered on 24 November 2005, ruling on cancellation
action No 941 C 973 065;

— confirm the

validity

of

Perfetti's CTM registration

No 973 065 CENTER SHOCK;

— order

the defendants to bear

the present
proceeding, as well as those of the OHIM invalidity and
appeal proceedings.

the costs of

Parties

Appellant: Marta Andreasen (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by B.
Marthoz, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought by the appellant

Registered Community trade mark subject of
declaration of
goods in class 30 — Community trade mark No 973 065

the application for a
invalidity: The word mark ‘CENTER SHOCK’ for

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade
mark: Cloetta Fazer AB

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:
The national word marks ‘CENTER’ and ‘CLOETTA CENTER’ for
goods in, inter alia, class 30

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of
the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94, as the conflicting trade marks are globally
impression, although
different in sound, meaning and overall
they have a common element. Furthermore, Cloetta and Perfetti
operate, according to the applicant, in different markets, since
their products address different needs and different consumers.

— set aside the judgment of

the Civil Service Tribunal of
8 November 2007 in Case F-40/05, rule on the dispute and
grant the form of order sought by the appellant at first
instance, including the claim for damages;

— order the defendant in the appeal to pay the costs;

— order the European Commission to pay all the costs and

expenses;

— in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the Civil Service
Tribunal of 8 November 2007 in Case F-40/05, refer the
case back to the Civil Service Tribunal and reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In her appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment of the
Civil Service Tribunal dismissing the action, first, for the annul-
the decision of 30 October 2004 by which the
ment of
Commission removed her
from her post as a disciplinary
measure without any reduction of her pension rights and,
second, the claim for damages should be set aside.

In support of her appeal, the appellant puts forward five pleas.

First of all, she claims that the Civil Service Tribunal infringed
Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in that it did
not carry out a review of the legality and of the proportionality
of the decision contested at first instance in relation to the
application of that provision in the light of the circumstances of
the present case and the appellant's particular situation owing to
the nature of the tasks which she performed.

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/61

The second plea is based on the alleged infringement of the
principles of the legality of Community acts, of the temporal
application of Community acts and of legal certainty in that the
Civil Service Tribunal did not state grounds for its judgment on
the issues relating to the application, in the present case, of the
rules contained in the old and new Staff Regulations.

Further, the appellant alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal
misinterpreted the facts submitted for its assessment.

She also pleads an error of assessment and an infringement by
the Civil Service Tribunal of Articles 11, 12, 17 and 21 of the
Staff Regulations in that it did not provide adequate grounds in
law for its judgment to the extent that it approved the applica-
tion of those provisions as effected by the decision contested at
first instance.

Lastly, the appellant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal also
infringed the principles recognised in Articles 6(1) and 13 of
the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 41
and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union.

Action brought on 8 January 2008 — Evets v OHIM
(DANELECTRO)

(Case T-20/08)

(2008/C 64/98)

whether all due care was taken to renew the trade mark
concerned;

— that the costs be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark
‘DANELECTRO’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 15 —
application No 117 937

Decision of the Administration of Trade Marks and Legal Division:
Refused the request for restitutio in integrum and declared the
trade mark as deemed to have been cancelled

Decision of
the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and
declared the restitutio in integrum request as deemed not to have
been filed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 78(2) of Council Regulation
(EC) No 40/94.

The applicant claims that the question of compliance with the
two month time-limit set by the abovementioned provision for
the filing of the application for renewal of trade mark registra-
tions and payment of the renewal fee was not part of the
appeal. Should the Court decide that the Board was entitled to
examine this issue, the applicant alternatively argues that the
time-limit was calculated in an incorrect fashion.

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 8 January 2008 — Evets v OHIM
(QWIK TUNE)

Parties

(Case T-21/08)

(2008/C 64/99)

Applicant: Evets Corporation (Irvine, United States) (represented
by: S. Ryan, Solicitor)

Language of the case: English

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

Parties

Form of order sought

Applicant: Evets Corporation (Irvine, United States) (represented
by: S. Ryan, Solicitor)

— That the decision R 603/2007 — 4 of the Fourth Board of

Appeal of 5 November 2007 be set aside;

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

— that an order be substituted that the application for restitutio
in integrum was brought within the time-limits as prescribed
by Article 78(2);

Form of order sought

— that the matter be referred back to the Fourth Board of
Appeal for them to deal with the substantive issue as to

— That the decision R 604/2007– 4 of the Fourth Board of

Appeal of 5 November 2007 be set aside;