Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

1.9.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 245/25

Grounds of claim: No risk of confusion within the Grounds of claim: Incorrect interpretation of
meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of article 7 (1) b) of Council ReguCouncil Regulation (EC) No 40/94 lation 40/94 ( [1] ).
of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark, since
there is neither a visual nor pho- ( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
netic similarity between the trade Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
marks nor do they desgignate
goods which may be confused

**Action brought on 18 June 2001 by Hans Fuchs Ver-**
**sandschlachterei KG against the Commission of the Euro-**
**pean Communities**
**Action brought on 11 June 2001 by Sykes Enterprises**
**Incorp. against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market** **(Case T-134/01)**

(2001/C 245/41)
**(Case T-130/01)**

(2001/C 245/40)
_(Language of the case: German)_

_(Language of the case: English)_
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 June 2001 by Hans Fuchs
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Versandschlachterei KG, Duisburg (Germany), represented by
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Ulrich Schrömbergs and Lothar Harings, Rechtsanwälte.
European Communities on 11 June 2001 by Sykes Enterprises
Incorp., Florida, USA, represented by Eberhard Körner of
Lichtenstein Körner & Partners, Stuttgard, Germany.
The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should: — order the Commission to pay the applicant
DEM 13 130,04 plus interest at 8 % per annum as from
— annul the contested decision of 7 March 2001 in Case 1 March 2000;
No. R 0504/2000-3; —
in the alternative, order the Bundesanstalt für Landwirt— schaft und Ernährung to pay the applicant
order the Office to publish the trademark application
DEM 13 130,04 plus interest at 8 % per annum as from
concerned;
1 March 2000;

— order the Office to pay the costs. — order the Commission to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_ _Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for the Com- Sykes Enterprises Inc.
In connection with a programme to supply agricultural
munity trade mark:
products to the Russian Federation( [1] ), two tendering procedures took place: one for procuring the products and the
The Community trademark concerned: Word mark: ‘Real people, realsolutions’ — Application other for their delivery to Russia. Commission Regulation(EC) No 1135/1999( [2] ) was to constitute the basis for the
n [o] 1040534 for certain services procurement of the products. Transport was dealt with by
in classes 35, 37 and 42
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1955/1999( [3] ).

Decision of the Exam- Rejection of the Application
iner: The applicant submitted a tender for the procurement of pork
for subsequent delivery to Russia and obtained the contract
Decision of the Board of Rejection of the Appeal for the procurement of one lot. A third party obtained the
Appeal: contract for delivery.