Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 213/30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 6.9.2003

_as it charges to the applicant, for the mission to the Hague of_
_12 to 18 August 1999, a sum overclaimed in respect of air_
_travel costs of BEF 1 921 instead of BEF 1 291;_

2. _Orders the defendant to repay to the applicant the sum of_
_EUR 15,62 together with interest to run from 26 June 2000,_
_at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for principal_
_refinancing operations applicable for the period in question,_
_increased by two points;_

3. _Dismisses the remainder of the application;_

4. _Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay one-sixth_
_of those incurred by the applicant._

( [1] ) OJ No C 79 of 10 March 2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE**

**of 25 June 2003**

**in Case T-72/01 Norman Pyres v Commission of the**
**European Communities** ( [1] )

_**(Officials — Internal competition — Exclusion from the oral**_
_**test)**_

(2003/C 213/57)

_(Language of the case: French)_

In Case T-72/01 Norman Pyres, a former member of the
temporary staff, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by
G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats, against the Commission
of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall)— application
for annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in
competition COM/TA/99 excluding the applicant from the
oral test in the competition and of all subsequent operations
and acts in the competition and, additionally, a claim for
damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,

President, and P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
25 June 2003, in which it:

1. _Dismisses the application;_

2. _Orders the parties to bear their own costs._

( [1] ) OJ No C 150 of 19 May 2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE**

**of 3 July 2003**

**in Case T-122/01: Best Buy Concepts Inc. v Office for**
**Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and**
**Designs) (OHIM)** ( [1] )

_**(Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the**_
_**word mark ‘best buy’ — Absolute ground for refusal —**_
_**Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)**_
_**No 40/94)**_

(2003/C 213/58)

_(Language of the case: German)_

In Case T-122/01, Best Buy Concepts Inc., established in Eden
Prairie, Minnesota (United States), represented by S. Rojahn,
lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider):
Application for annulment of the decision of the Third Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2001 (Case
R 44/2000-3) concerning an application for registration of a
figurative mark containing the word mark ‘best buy’ as a
Community trade mark, the Court of First Instance (Second
Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung
and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July 2003, in which
it:

1. _Dismisses the application;_

6.9.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/31

2. _Orders the applicant to pay the costs._

( [1] ) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE**

**of 3 July 2003**

**in Case T-129/01: José Alejandro, SL v Office for Harmon-**
**isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**
**(OHIM)** ( [1] )

_**(Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier**_
_**national word marks BUD — Application for Community**_
_**word mark BUDMEN — Relative ground for refusal —**_
_**Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)**_

(2003/C 213/59)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_

In Case T-129/01, José Alejandro SL, established in Alicante
(Spain), represented by I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer, v Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: F. López de Rego and J.F. Crespo
Carrillo); Intervener, Anheuser-Busch Inc., established in Saint
Louis, Missouri (United States), represented by V. von
Bomhard, lawyer: Action brought against the decision of the
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2001
(Case R 230/2000-1), concerning an opposition procedure
between Anheuser-Busch Inc. and José Alejandro SL, the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 3 July 2003, in which it:

1. _Dismisses the action;_

2. _Orders the applicant to pay the costs._

( [1] ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE**

**of 9 July 2003**

**in Case T-156/01: Laboratorios RTB, SL v Office for**
**Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and**
**Designs) (OHIM)** ( [1] )

_**(Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings —**_
_**Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Earlier**_
_**figurative and word marks containing the word GIORGI —**_
_**Application for Community word mark GIORGIO AIRE —**_
_**Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation**_
_**No 40/94 — Proof of use — Article 56(2) and (3) of**_
_**Regulation No 40/94)**_

(2003/C 213/60)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_

In Case T-156/01, Laboratorios RTB, SL, established in Bigues
i Riells (Spain), represented by A. Canela Giménez, lawyer, v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and J.F. Crespo
Carrillo): Action brought against the decision of the First Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 April 2001 (Case
R 258/2000-1), the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi, and M. Vilaras,
Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
9 July 2003, in which it:

1. _Dismisses the application;_

2. _Orders the applicant to pay the costs._

( [1] ) OJ C 259 of 15.9.2001.