Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 184/42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 2.8.2003

**Action brought on 19 May 2003 by Trudell Medical Inter-**
**national against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-176/03)**

(2003/C 184/93)

_(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of_
_the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application 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
19 May 2003 by Trudell Medical International, London,
Ontario (Canada), represented by Helmut Eichmann, Gerhard
Barth, Ulrich Blumenroder, Christa Niklas-Falter, Maximilian
Kinkeldey, Karsten Brandt, Anja Franke, Ute Stephani, Bernd
Allekotte, Elvira Pfrang, Karin Lochner, Babett Ertle, lawyers.

Fisons Limited 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 the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) in the case R 643/2002-1 of March
17, 2003;

—
order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the
defendant

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Community Trudell Medical International
trade mark:

Community trade mark Word mark ‘AEROECLIPSE’ for
sought: certain goods in Class 10 (application No 001098649 )

Proprietor of mark or sign
cited in the opposition proceedings:

Fisons Limited

Mark or sign cited in op- National mark ‘ECLIPSE’ in reposition: spect of certain goods in
Classes 5 and 10.

Decision of the Opposition Opposition rejected.
Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal granted, decision of the
Appeal: Opposition Division annulled,
registration refused.

Pleas in law: — misapplication of Article 8
(1)(b), of Regulation 40/
94 ( [1] ). The applicant alleges
that there was no risk of
confusion between the two
marks concerned.

—
misapplication of Articles 74
(1) and 73 and of Regulation 40/94. The applicant
alleges that the Board of
Appeal examined alleged
facts and arguments which
were provided by neither
party and further based its
decision on reasons on
which the parties concerned
have had no opportunity to
present their comments.

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).

**Action brought on 21 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG &**
**Co. OHG against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**

**(Case T-178/03)**

(2003/C 184/94)

_(Language of the case: German)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
21 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG, Oldenburg
(Germany), represented by Chr. Spintig, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
defendant of 12 March 2003 in Case R 641/2002-3;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

2.8.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/43

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Community trade mark Word mark ‘DigiFilm’, applicasought: tion no 2 467 348

Goods or services: Goods and services in Classes 9
(storage media etc.) and 42
(creating photographs etc.)

Decision contested before Refusal by the examiner of rethe Board of Appeal: gistration

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the applicant's apAppeal: peal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 40/94 ( [1] )

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

**Action brought on 19 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG &**
**Co. OHG against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**

**(Case T-179/03)**

(2003/C 184/95)

_(Language of the case: German)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
19 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG, Oldenburg
(Germany), represented by Chr. Spintig, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
defendant of 12 March 2003 in Case R 638/2002-3;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Community trade mark Word mark ‘DigiFilmMaker’, apsought: plication no 2 467 017

Goods or services: Goods and services in Classes 9
(storage media etc.) and 42
(creating photographs etc.)

Decision contested before Refusal by the examiner of rethe Board of Appeal: gistration

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the applicant's apAppeal: peal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 40/94 ( [1] )

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

**Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Gianmarco Addi-**
**mando and Others against the European Parliament**

**(Case T-182/03)**

(2003/C 184/96)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
20 May 2003 by Gianmarco Addimando, residing in Luxembourg, and 32 other officials, represented by G. Bounéou,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
changing, with effect from a year not further specified
(1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
during which the applicants were officials of the
European Parliament), the procedure for calculating the
annual expense of travelling to Greece in respect of the
journey via Brindisi, as taken into consideration for the
destination of Athens;

or, in the alternative,

—
annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
(1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
during which the applicants were officials of the
European Parliament), the cost of the sea passage from
Brindisi to various Greek frontier points (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;

—
annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the
decisions annulment of which is sought;

—
reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid
following implementation of the decisions annulment of
which is sought, together with legal interest;