Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

6.3.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/33

In support of their claims the applicants submit that the
Commission, having only limited discretion, was obliged, in
accordance with the principle of sound administration, to deal
diligently and impartially with the complaint in this case. They
argue that in that respect, that the Commission’s discretion in
the matter at issue must correspond to the objective of
establishing a scheme which ensures that competition is not
distorted in the common market, so that the Member States
do not adopt, in favour of one undertaking, measures which
may give rise to the elimination or restriction of effective
competition in the market at issue.

This application also takes account of the fact that the
Commission itself has assessed the conditions of competition
in the referral decision, so as to include all the criteria which
may be used for the purpose of determining whether the
measures adopted maintain or preserve competition in the
markets at issue, and also that it has accepted commitments
which are substantially different in another current and very
similar case (M.2876 Newscorp/telepiú), and that therefore it
cannot be claimed that the measures adopted by the Spanish
Government maintain or preserve competition in the markets
concerned.

( [1] ) OJ L 395 of 30.12.89, p. 1.

**Action brought on 2 January 2004 by Electronics for**
**Imaging, Inc., against Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-1/04)**

(2004/C 59/52)

_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
2 January 2004 by Electronics for Imaging, Inc., Foster City,
California, USA, represented by Mr S. Malynicz, Barrister.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal dated
25 August 2003, case number R 0793/2002-4 in so far

as it refused the application for registration of VELOCITY
as a trade mark on the basis of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) of
the CTMR;

—
order the Office to bear its own costs and pay those of
the Applicant.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Trade mark concerned: Verbal trade mark ‘VELOCITY’ —
Application No 1661842.

Products or services: Products and services in classes 9,
16, 37 and 42.

Challenged Decision Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of examiner.
Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7 (1) (b)
and (c) of Regulation No 40/94.

**Action brought on 7 January 2004 by Simonds Farsons**
**Cisk Plc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-3/04)**

(2004/C 59/53)

_(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of_
_the Rules of Procedure — language in which the case was submitted:_
_English)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
7 January 2004 by Simonds Farsons Cisk Plc., Mriehel, Malta,
represented by Ms M. Bagnall and Mr I. Wood, Solictors and
Mr R. Hacon, Barrister. SA Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière
de Spa, en abrégé SA Spa Monopole NV., was also a party to
the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of
4 November 2003;