Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 44/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 16.2.2002

European Communities on 3 December 2001 by Lucı´a The applicant claims that the Court should:
Aparicio Chofré, residing in Valencia (Spain), represented by
Gloria Ballester Can˜ada, lawyer. —
annul the decision adopted on 19 September 2001 by
the Third Board of Appeal in Case No R 826/2000-3;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
order the defendant to proceed with the registration
— proceedings in respect of Community trade mark appliannul the decision of the selection board in general
cation No 607895, in particular to re-open the opposition
competition COM/B/01 in the event that it does not mark
proceedings pending under opposition No B 190746
the tests sat by the applicant on 6 July 2001.
and, following the conclusion of those opposition proceedings, in so far as Community trade mark application
No 607895 is not found to be excluded from registration
in accordance with the first sentence of Article 43(5) of
the Community trade mark regulation( [1] ), order the
_Pleas in law and main arguments_
defendant to register the trade mark applied for pursuant
to Article 45 of that regulation;

The applicant claims that the contested decision, which —
order the defendant to pay the costs.
excludes her from the competition on the ground that
she does not meet the conditions relating to professional
experience required under Point III.B of the competition notice,
not only adversely affects her but, moreover, is unlawful and
contrary to the wording of the competition notice( [1] ), according
_Pleas in law and main arguments_
to which candidates must have acquired, by the deadline for
the submission of applications, at least 4 years’ professional
experience. The applicant argues that, in accordance with the
criteria laid down in the notice for the calculation of the period The trade mark applied the verbal mark ‘OLDENBURGER’
of professional experience, she has shown that she has acquired for: — Application No 607895
7 years and 8 months of experience, so that the board should
have allowed her to take part in the competition. Goods or services: goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32
(including milk and dairy products)

( [1] ) Published in OJ 2001 C 24A.
Decision contested refusal of registration by the
before the Board of examiner
Appeal:

Decision of the Board of rejection of the appeal
Appeal:

Grounds of claim: — error of law in the application of Article 7(1)(c) and
**Action brought on 3 December 2001 by Nordmilch eG**
Article 7(2) of Regulation
**against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
(EC) No 40/94;
**Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**

—
misinterpretation of Article
12(b) of Regulation (EC)
**(Case T-295/01)**
No 40/94;

—
error of law by the defendant
(2002/C 44/41) in failing to call upon the
applicant to give a disclaimer.
_(Language of the case: German)_

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
3 December 2001 by Nordmilch eG, of Zeven (Germany),
represented by C. Spintig, lawyer.