Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

26.4.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/45

**Action brought on 11 February 2003 by Pi-Design AG**
**against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-51/03)**

(2003/C 101/79)

_(Language of the case: Danish)_

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
11 February 2003 by Pi-Design AG, Triengen (Switzerland),
represented by Jacob S Ørndrup, lawyer

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the defendant of 5 December 2002
in Case No R452/2001-2 concerning EC trade mark
application No 000353854;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Community trade mark A three-dimensional trade mark
sought: in the form of a ‘cafetière’ (pushdown coffee pot) — application
No 353854

Goods or services: Nice classification 21 (non-electric coffee makers)

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

Decision of Board of Dismissal of appeal
Appeal:

Pleas in law: — The defendant’s decision is
contrary to Article 7(1)(b) of
Regulation No 40/94 ( [1] ):

— The trade mark has the
necessary distinctive
character.

—
The fact that the plaintiff’s
cafetière design is copied
should not in itself lead to
the trade mark application’s
being refused on grounds of
lack of distinctive character.

—
There is no basis for stating
that the cafetière in question
isa manifestation of the ‘usual shape of the product’.

( [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 14 February 2003 by BPB plc against**
**the Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-53/03)**

(2003/C 101/80)

_(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 14 February 2003 by BPB plc,
Slough, United Kingdom, represented by Thomas Sharpe QC
and Mr Alexandre Nourry, Solicitor with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested Decision insofar
as it relates to BPB

—
In the alternative, annul Article 3 of the Decision insofar
as it relates to BPB or, in the further alternative, reduce
the fine imposed on BPB to such amount as the Court
determines in accordance with law

—
Subject to the annulment of Article 3 of the Decision or
the reduction in the fine, order repayment of the principal
sum paid by BPB together with such interest as the Court
should determine in accordance with law

—
Order the Commission to pay BPB’s costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

By its decision which forms the subject matter of the present
action, the defendant found that the applicant and three
other undertakings, namely Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche
Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux, had
infringed Article 81 paragraph 1 EC by participating in a
complex and continuing agreement from 1992 until 1998
with the object of stabilising the principal EU markets in
plasterboard. The applicant denies that any agreement of the
type alleged existed.