Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 169/42 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 13.7.2002

_Pleas in law and main arguments_ The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the Commission’s decision dated 22 January 2001;
Applicant for the Com- The applicant
munity trade mark: —
order the Commission to compensate the applicants for
The Community trade Verbal mark ‘BIO-CANISAN’ — their loss of earnings and other benefits caused by the
mark concerned: Application No 353 896, relating breaches of Community law;
to goods in classes 5 and 31 —
order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.
(veterinary preparations and foodstuffs for animals)

Proprietor of the right to VETO-Centre
_Pleas in law and main arguments_
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of opposition in the opposition The applicants all worked in the JET Project as employees or
proceedings: contractors to UK registered companies. According to the
applicants, however, they should have been recruited by the
Trade mark or sign French trade marks No 1582968 Commission as temporary agents since they were part of the
asserted by way of oppo- ‘biocanina ’(word and device), JET Project Team.
sition in the opposition relating to goods in classes 5 and
proceedings: 31, and No 1350892 ‘BIOCANINA’), relating to goods in class 5 The applicants claim that the failure of the Commission to
recruit the applicants as temporary agents was contrary the
Decision of the Oppo- Refusal of the application JET statutes and constitutes an act ultra vires. According to the
sition Division: applicants, the JET statutes did not provide for the possibility
of engaging staff who were working in the JET Project Team
Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal through external contractors.
Appeal:

Grounds of claim: Infringement of Article 43(2), Furthermore, the applicants claim that the Commission discriminated against them since this resulted in the applicants
third sentence, and Article 8(1)(b)
being treated in a less favourable manner then those employed
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
by the Commission who were fulfilling substantially similar
roles in the JET Project.

**Action brought on 7 May 2002 by Richard J. Eagle, John**
**G. Fanthome, Martin Gardener, Robert C. Walton, David** **Action brought on 15 May 2002 by Sunrider Corporation**
**Sands, Alexander Gaberscik, Beryl Marrs, Clifford Marren,** **against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Robert Felton, Carol Brickley, TF Atkins, Michael George** **Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**
**Grant and Edward Junger against the Commission of the**
**European Communities**
**(Case T-156/02)**

**(Case T-144/02)** (2002/C 169/75)

(2002/C 169/74) _(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)_
_of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was_
_submitted: German)_
_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
European Communities on 7 May 2002 by Richard J. Eagle, 15 May 2002 by Sunrider Corporation, Torrance (USA),
John G. Fanthome, Martin Gardener, Robert C. Walton, David represented by A. Kockläuner, lawyer.
Sands, Alexander Gaberscik, Beryl Marrs, Clifford Marren,
Robert Felton, Carol Brickley, TF Atkins, Michael George Grant
and Edward Junger, represented by Mr Daniel Beard of Frieslands Brands B.V., Leeuwarden (the Netherlands) was an
Monckton Chambers, London (United Kingdom). additional party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

13.7.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 169/43

The applicant claims that the Court should: **Removal from the register of Case T-203/00** ( [1] )

—
partially annul Decision R 34/2000-1 of the First Board (2002/C 169/76)
of Appeal of 21 February 2002 to the extent that the
applicant was ordered to bear half of the opposition fees
_(Language of the case: Dutch)_
as well as its owns costs in the opposition and appeal
proceedings;

— By order of 25 February 2002 the President of the Third
order the Office to pay the costs.
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-203/00: Beemsterboer Coldstore Services B.V. v Commission
_Pleas in law and main arguments_
of the European Communities.

The applicant filed an application for registration of the word
( [1] ) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
mark ‘METABALANCE 44’ in respect of goods in Classes 5
and 29 at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(application no 155747). Frieslands Brands B.V. opposed that
application. The opposition was based on various national and
international marks including, _inter alia_, ‘BALANCE’, ‘BALANS’
and ‘FRIESISCHE FLAGGE BALANCE’ in respect of, _inter alia_,
**Removal from the register of Case T-309/00** ( [1] )
goods in Classes 5 and 29.

(2002/C 169/77)
As a result of a private settlement with the opponent, the
applicant limited the category of goods by removing some of _(Language of the case: French)_
the goods claimed in Class 29. The opponent later withdrew
its opposition but sought a decision on costs.
By order of 17 April 2002 the President of the First Chamber
The Opposition Division decided that the applicant should of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
bear the costs of the opposition procedure. The Board of ordered the removal from the register of Case T-309/00: S.A.
Appeal set this decision aside and ordered each of the parties Cimenteries CBR v Commission of the European Communities.
to pay its own costs in respect of the opposition and appeal
proceedings.
( [1] ) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.

The applicant is appealing against the decision of the Board of
Appeal and claims that the more specific Article 81(4) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94( [1] ), not Article 81(3), is
applicable in the present case. The defendant thus failed to
take into account the fundamental assessment criteria and to **Removal from the register of Case T-14/02** ( [1] )
observe the principle of proportionality.
(2002/C 169/78)
Moreover, in the applicant’s opinion, the defendant also
wrongly applied the assessment criteria in Article 81(3) in _(Language of the case: English)_
conjunction with Article 81(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 40/94. In the applicant’s view, that provision requires
that a decision on costs should take into account general By order of 9 April 2002 the President of the Fifth Chamber
considerations of equity and fairness. of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-14/02:
Agrofair Benelux BV and Others v Commission of the
( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
European Communities.
Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

( [1] ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.