Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

1.11.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 264/37

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Community trade mark The word mark ‘map&guide’ —
sought: application No 2089829

Goods or services: Goods and services in Classes 9,
41 and 42 (computer software,
conducting training events for
computer software and computer
programming)

Decision contested Refusalby the examiner to register
before the Board of the mark in respect of ‘computer
Appeal: software’ and‘computer programming’

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94

**Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Bayer AG**
**against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-304/03)**

(2003/C 264/65)

_(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)_
_of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was_
_submitted: German)_

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
8 September 2003 by Bayer AG, Leverkusen (Germany),
represented by M. Wolpert, lawyer. Sanofi-Synthelabo (Société
Anonyme), Paris, was also a party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
amend the decision of 4 June 2003 of the Fourth Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Case R 452/2002-4) and reject the opposition;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Com- The applicant in this casey
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark The word mark ‘NEXAVAR’ for
sought: goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical
and veterinary preparations, diagnostic preparations for medicinal

—
purposes) Application
No 1534213

Proprietor of mark or Sanofi-Synthelabo (Société
sign cited in the oppo- Anonyme)
sition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in The national word mark ‘BESAopposition: VAR’ for goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical preparations)

Decision of the Oppo- Rejection of the opposition
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal: Opposition Division and refusal
of the application

Pleas in law: There is no similarity between
the marks which could lead to
confusion

**Action brought on 4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeut-**
**sche Handelsgesellschaft mbH against the Office for**
**Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and**
**Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-307/03)**

(2003/C 264/66)

_(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)_
_of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was_
_submitted: German)_

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
4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft
mbH, represented by U. Schuster, lawyer. Kaufring AG,
Düsseldorf (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings
before the Board of Appeal.

C 264/38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 1.11.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) in Case R 52/2002-4 of 12 May
2003 in so far as paragraph 2 of the decision dismisses
the appeal for the goods ‘jewellery’ and ‘bags for sports
equipment, suitable for carrying objects’;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Com- Kaufring AG
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark Figurative mark ‘UNICA’ inter alia
sought: for goods in Classes 14, 22, 23, 24
and 28 — Application No 41244

Proprietor of mark or The applicant
sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in German word mark ‘UNI CAT’
opposition: (No 2070 215 for goods in
Class 25 (clothing, head coverings)

Decision of the Oppo- Partial rejection of the opposition
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of Annulment of the Decision in
Appeal: relation to ‘artificial textile fibres’
(Class 22) and ‘yarns and threads,
for textile use’ (Class 23). For the
rest, dismissal of the applicant’s
appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94

**Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Valérie Wiame**
**against the Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-308/03)**

(2003/C 264/67)

_(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 8 September 2003 by Valérie
Wiame,residing in Enghien (Belgium), represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

—
Annul the Commission’s decision of 22 July 2002 laying
down the detailed rules for the engagement of the
applicant as a member of the temporary staff on the
ground that the contract was unlawfully based on
Article 2(b) of the Conditions of Employment of Other
Servants of the European Communities for a fixed period
from 1 July 2002 to 31 March 2003 inclusive;

—
Order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant worked for the Commission as a member of its
temporary staff until 31 March 2002. The applicant states
that, in the light of specific assurances from her superiors as
to the renewal of her contract, she continued to perform the
permanent duties assigned to her in the European public
service from 1 April 2002 to 30 June 2002. On 22 July 2002,
the Commission drew up a new contract as a member of the
temporary staff for the period from 1 July 2002 to 31 March
2003 inclusive. That contract was based on Article 2(b) of the
Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European
Communities (‘the Conditions’).

As a result of the applicant’s complaint, the Commission paid
her a sum equal to three months’ basic salary by way of
compensation, but refused to give her a contract for an
indefinite period pursuant to Article 2(a) of the Conditions.

In support of her application the applicant alleges breach of
Articles 2 and 8 of the Conditions, breach of the principle of
legitimate expectations and breach of the duty to have regard
for the welfare of officials.