Case T-483/08: Action brought on 11 November 2008 — Giordano Enterprises v OHIM — José Dias Magalhães & Filhos (GIORDANO)
Date: 2008-11-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law

C 19/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.1.2009

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

2. S.C. Gerovital Cosmetics S.A. and S.C. Farmec S.A. shall each
bear their own costs and half of those incurred by the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM).

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.

The applicant claims that the outcome of the tender has not
been communicated to it and that it came only incidentally to
its knowledge that a contract award notice had been published
in the Official Journal (1) of 26 July 2008. The applicant argues
that the contested decision was taken by the defendant in viola-
tion of the principles of transparency and of equal treatment,
and of the relevant provisions of the EIB's Guide for Procure-
ment and the EC law on public procurement. It is submitted
moreover that by not notifying the applicant of its award deci-
sion, by failing to provide sufficient justification of its decision
to award the contract to another tenderer, by setting criteria
that result in unequal treatment, by mixing selection and award
criteria, by using a discriminatory evaluation formula of a ratio
75 %/25 %, the defendant allegedly failed to ensure undistorted
competition through repeated infringements of the obligation of
transparency and equal treatment.

Action brought on 6 October 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki
v BEI

(Case T-461/08)

(2009/C 19/57)

Language of the case: English

the defendant

The applicant furthermore claims that should the Court find
infringed the community law of public
that
procurement and/or principles of
transparency and of
equal treatment, the applicant requests monetary compensation
equal to 50 % of EUR 3 880 000,00 (EUR 1 940 000,00) from
EIB, corresponding to the estimated gross profit from the afore-
mentioned public procurement procedure, should the contract
have been awarded to the applicant.

legal

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepi-
koinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athènes, Greece)
(represented by: N. Korogiannakis and P. Katsimani, lawyers)

The applicant further requests the Court to condemn the defen-
dant to pay the applicant's legal costs even if the Court rejects
the application, in accordance with Article 87(3)(b) of the Rules
of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, since it considers
that it was the defendant's deficient evaluation of the applicant's
tender, as well as the failure to state reasons and inform the
applicant timely on the relative merits of the successful tenderer
that forced the applicant to seek legal redress before this Court.

Defendant: European Investment Bank

(1) OJ 2008/S 144-192307.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the European Investment Bank to
evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the
contract to the successful contractor;

— Order the European Investment Bank to pay the applicant's
damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in
question for an amount of EUR 1 940 000,00;

— Order the European Investment Bank to pay the applicant's
legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection
with this application, even if
the current application is
rejected.

Action brought on 11 November 2008 — Giordano
Enterprises v OHIM — José Dias Magalhães & Filhos
(GIORDANO)

(Case T-483/08)

(2009/C 19/58)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Language in which the application was lodged: English

its application pursuant

to Articles 230 EC
By means of
and 235 EC, the applicant seeks, on one hand, the annulment
of the decision of the European Investment Bank of 26 July
2008 to reject the bid of the applicant filed in response to
in
the
the
Tenders
for
the loans front
Maintenance Support and Development of
Office system (SERAPIS) at
the European Investment Bank’
(OJ 2007/S 176-215155), and on the other hand, compensation
for damages.

‘EIB-Assistance

open

Call

Parties

Applicant: Giordano Enterprises Ltd (Jalan Merdeka, Malaysia)
(represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/31

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

Appeal brought on 13 November 2008 by Paul Lafili
against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered
on 4 September 2008 in Case F-22/07 Lafili v Commission

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Dias
Magalhães & Filhos Lda (Arrifana, Portugal)

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 28 July 2008 in case R 1864/2007-2, as far
as it dismissed the appeal of the applicant; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GIORDANO’
for goods in classes 18 and 25

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: Portuguese trade mark registration No 322 534
of the word mark ‘GIORDANO’ for goods in class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposi-
tion

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the
Opposition Division to the extent that it upheld the opposition
for certain goods in class 18 and dismissed the appeal for the
reminder

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that
there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks
concerned; Infringement of Article 42 of Council Regulation
No 40/94 as well as Rule 15 of Commission Regulation
No 2868/95 (1) as the Board of Appeal wrongly rendered a deci-
sion pursuant to Article 8(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94
while the other party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal based its opposition only on Article 8(1)(b) of Council
Regulation 40/94.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995
implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community
trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

(Case T-485/08 P)

(2009/C 19/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Paul Lafili (Genk, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi,
lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims the Court should:

— annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the
European Union of 4 September 2008 in Case F-22/07 in
so far as it rejected the pleas in law alleging infringement of
Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations and Article 7 of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and an infringement of
the principle of legitimate expectations;

— consequently, allow the appellant's claims at first instance

and, therefore,

— the annulment of the decision to classify the appellant in
Grade AD 13, step 5, contained in a note of DG ADMIN
of 11 May 2006 and in the appellant's salary slip of
June 2006 and in his subsequent salary slips;

— leading to:

— the reinstatement, with effect from 1 May 2006, of
the applicant in grade AD 13, step 2, retaining the
multiplication factor 1.1172071;

— the full restructuring of the appellant's career with
retroactive effect from 1 May 2006 to the date of his
classification in grade and step as thus corrected
(including the valuation of his experience in his clas-
sification as thus corrected, his rights of advance-
ment to a higher step and his pension rights), which
includes the payment of default interest at the base
rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main
refinancing operations, applicable during the period
concerned, increased by two points, on the total sum
of the difference between the remuneration for his
classification as set out in the classification decision
and the classification to which he should have been
entitled until the date on which the decision on his
corrected classification is taken;

— the order that the Commission is to pay all the costs;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs at first instance and

of the appeal.