Case T-156/08 P: Appeal brought on 24 April 2008 by R against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 February 2008 in Case F-49/07, R v Commission
Date: 2008-04-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European civil service, European official, action by staff, action for annulment (EU), indemnification, probationary period, psychological harassment, rights of the defence

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/39

Action brought on 21 April 2008 — Victor Guedes-
Indústria e Comércio v OHIM — Consorci de l'Espai Rural
de Gallecs (GALLECS)

(Case T-151/08)

(2008/C 171/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Victor Guedes-Indústria e Comércio, SA (Lisbon,
Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consorci
de l'Espai Rural de Gallecs (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 16 January 2008 in case R 986/2007-2;

— order OHIM to refuse the grant of the registration of Com-
munity trademark No 3 710 597 in respect of the goods in
classes 29 and 31: and

— order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of

Appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Consorci de l'Espai Rural
de Gallecs

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GALLECS’
for goods in classes 29 and 31 — application No 3 710 597

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
applicant

Mark or sign cited: The national figurative mark ‘GALLO’ for
goods in class 29; the national figurative mark ‘GALLO AZEITE
NOVO’
figurative mark
the national mark
for goods in class 29;
‘AZEITE GALLO’
‘GALLO AZEITE NOVO’ for goods in class 29; the Community
figurative mark ‘GALLO’ for goods in class 29

for goods in class 29;

the national

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in
its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and of Article 8(5)
of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the contested mark is
similar to earlier marks and its use would be detrimental to the
distinctive character of such, taking into account the usual prac-
tices in the relevant commercial sector as well as the other
circumstances of the case.

Appeal brought on 24 April 2008 by R against the judg-
ment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 February
2008 in Case F-49/07, R v Commission

(Case T-156/08 P)

(2008/C 171/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: R (Brussels, Belgium)
lawyer)

(represented by Y. Minatchy,

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Annul

the order of

the Civil Service Tribunal of
European Union of 19 February 2008 in Case F-49/07;

the

— Grant the application for annulment and damages made by

the applicant at first instance;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present appeal, the applicant is seeking the annulment of
the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) dismissing
as inadmissible the action in which he applied, first, for the
annulment of his entire probationary period and all
the
measures produced in that connection,
including the end of
probationary period report, and, second, for damages by way of
compensation for the loss allegedly suffered.

In support of his appeal, the applicant relies, first, on a denial of
due process inasmuch as the Tribunal did not take account of
certain factors and documents submitted by the applicant and,
second, on an erroneous interpretation of the Rules of Proce-
dure of the Civil Service Tribunal and the Staff Regulations of
Officials of the European Communities. The applicant also relies
on manifest errors in the assessment of the facts.