Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 247/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 12.10.2002

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trademarks and Designs) of 19 June 2002;

—
order the Defendant to remit the application to its
Examination Division for re-examination of Community
Trademark number 1299809.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The trade mark con- The figurative mark, presented as
cerned: design of capsule with yellow
bands — application
No 1299809

Goods or service con- Goods in Class 5(pharmaceuticals
cerned: inthe nature of anti-inflammatory
analgesics)

Decision contested Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of examiner
Appeal:

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:

Grounds of claim: Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 ( [1] )

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).

**Action brought on 13 August 2002 by Albano Ferrer de**
**Moncada against Commission of the European Communi-**
**ties**

**(Case T-246/02)**

(2002/C 247/39)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 August 2002 by Albano Ferrer
de Moncada, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges
Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the implied rejection by the appointing authority
of the request of 28 August 2001 for damages on account
of the undue delay by the defendant in drawing up the
applicant’s staff reports for the reference periods 19951997 and 1997-1999 and, in so far as necessary, annul
the implied rejection of the complaint of 14 January
2002;

—
award EUR 25 000 in damages by of compensation for
non-material damage, that amount being fixed _ex aequo et_
_bono_ ;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

By his application, the applicant, an official of the Office de
Contrôle de la Sécurité at Euratom, seeks an award of damages
for the alleged delay in drawing up his staff report relating to
the reference periods 1995-1997 and 1997-1999.

The applicant claims that, by refusing to finalise those reports
which are an essential assessment where the applicant’s career
is at stake, the defendant infringed Article 43 of the Staff
Regulations, the provisions of the Guide de Notation and the
principle of equal treatment. Furthermore, the defendant is in
breach of its duty to have regard to the welfare of its officials
and infringed the principle of sound administration.

**Action brought on 9 August 2002 by The Christian**
**Science Board of Directors of The First Church of Christ,**
**Scientist against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**

**(Case T-247/02)**

(2002/C 247/40)

_(Language of the case: English)_

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
9 August 2002 by The Christian Science Board of Directors of
The First Church of Christ, Scientist, represented by Nicholas
Green QC, Mark Engelman, barristers and by Geoffrey Smith
and James Mitchiner, solicitors, Field Fisher Waterhouse,
London (UK).

12.10.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 247/25

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1) annul the decision of 21 May 2002 the First Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) under Article 7(1)(b)
of the Community Trade Mark Regulation ( [1] ) in so far as
it refused registration of the Mark in respect of goods and
services in classes 9, 16, 41 and 42;

2) in the alternative, annul the Decision under Article 7(3)
of the Regulation in so far as the Board of Appeal refused
registration of the Mark in respect of ‘religious services’;

3) alternatively to 2), alter the Decision under Article 7(3) of
the Regulation so as to permit registration of the Mark in
respect of ‘religious Sunday services’ and/or remit this to
OHIM for further examination;

4) alternatively to 2), alter the Decision under Article 7(3) of
the Regulation so as to permit registration of the Mark
and/or remit this to OHIM for further examination in
respect of the restricted specification set out as follows:

‘organisation of Church and worship services; organisation of religious Sunday services; organisation of midweek testimony meetings; organisation of worship services at colleges, provision of sermons, organisation of
religious functions; organisation of religious ceremonies;
organisation of churches; organisation of places of worship; organisation of religious societies’;

5) annul the Decision under Article 7(3) of the Regulation
in so far as the Board of Appeal refused registration of
the Mark in respect of ‘library services; lending of books’;

6) annul the Decision under Article 7(3) of the Regulation
in so far as the Board of Appeal refused registration of
the Mark in respect of ‘religious-educational services’;

7) alternatively to 6), alter the Decision under Article 7(3) of
the Regulation so as to permit registration of the Mark
and/or remit this to OHIM for further examination in
respect of the restricted specification:

‘provision of classes regarding religious instruction;
organisation of associations for religious instruction’;

8) annul the Decision under Article 7(3) of the Regulation
in so far as the Board of Appeal refused registration of
the Mark in respect of

‘all printed materials, paper articles, cardboard articles,
books, magazines, tracts, writings, photographs, pictures,
works of art, cards, periodicals, andreproductions, including printed Bible lessons and passages, journals, postcards, printed religious publications and diverse literature’;

9) alternatively to 8), annul or alter the Decision under
Article 7(3) of the Regulation in so far as the Board of
Appeal refused registration of the Mark and/or remit this
to OHIM for further examination in respect of the
restricted Class 16 specification:

‘books; hymnals, tracts, printed Bible lessons and passages, journals, magazines, periodicals, printed religious
publications’;

10) order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs of this
application.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The trade mark con- The word mark ‘CHRISTIAN SCIcerned: ENCE ’ — application No 78 915

Goods or service con- Goods and services in Class 9, 16,
cerned: 38, 41 and 42 (e.g. computer
software, printed materials, telecommunications, educational services and on-line computer services)

Decision contested Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of examiner in respect of all goods
Appeal: and services applied for, except
for certain goods and services in
classes 16, 38, 41 and 42

Decision of the Board of — Annulment of the contested
Appeal: decision in so far as it rejected the trade mark application for ‘reading rooms,
public lectures; services in
publishing of books, journals, reviews, periodicals,
and religious publications;
production of film and
sound or audio-visual recordings; Sunday schools’;

— remittal of the case to the
examiner for further prosecution;

—
dismissal of the appeal for
the remainder.

C 247/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 12.10.2002

Grounds of claim: — The Decision is in breach of
Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94: The Board of
Appeal failed to draw the
correct inferences from the
cited evidence, misapplied
the test of relevant public,
failed to apply the law consistently and failed to provide proper reasoning.

— The Decision is in breach of
Article 7(3) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94: The Board of
Appeal failed to apply the
test for acquired distinctiveness correctly, failed to
interpret the evidence associated with various goods and
services correctly and did not
provide adequate reasoning.

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).

**Action brought on 13 August 2002 by Carla Faita against**
**Economic and Social Committee of the European Com-**
**munities**

**(Case T-248/02)**

(2002/C 247/41)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the Economic and Social Committee of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 13 August 2002
by Carla Faita, residing in Brussels, represented by Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions of the Bureau of the Economic and
Social Committee of the European Communities to reject
the applicant’s candidature for the post of head of the
Italian Translation and Transcription Division of the
Logistics and Translation Directorate and to appoint
another candidate to the post;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant, an official of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities, applied for the post of
head of the Italian Translation and Transcription Division of
the Logistics and Translation Directorate. However, the Bureau
of the Economic and Social Committee rejected her application
and appointed another candidate to that post.

In support of her claim, the applicant alleges:

—
infringement of Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations;

—
infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

—
manifest error of assessment;

—
breach of the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects;

—
abuse of process;

—
breach of the duty to provide reasons.

**Action brought on 16 August 2002 by E against Com-**
**mission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-251/02)**

(2002/C 247/42)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 August 2002 by E, residing in
Brussels, represented by Laure Levi and Georges Vandersanden,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the appointing authority of
29 August 2001 fixing the applicant’s place of origin and
place of recruitment as Brussels and refusing to grant her
the expatriation allowance, installation allowance, daily
subsistence allowance, travel expenses and removal
expenses relating to her taking up her duties at the
Commission on 16 July 2001.

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.