Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 304/26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.12.2003

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE**

**of 23 September 2003**

**in Case T-308/01: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonis-**
**ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**
**(OHIM)** ( [1] )

_**(Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and**_
_**Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Opposition procedure —**_
_**Genuine use of earlier mark — Scope of the examination**_
_**conducted by the Board of Appeal — Assessment of the**_
_**evidence produced in the procedure before the Opposition**_
_**Division)**_

(2003/C 304/46)

_(Language of the case: English)_

In Case T-308/01, Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf
(Germany), represented by C. Osterrieth, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Agent: O. Waelbroeck), the other party to the proceedings
before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) being: LHS (UK) Ltd, established in
Cheadle Hulme (United Kingdom): Appeal against the decision
of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September
2001 (Case R-738/2000-3) concerning opposition proceedings between Henkel KGaA and LHS (UK) Ltd, the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
23 September 2003, in which it:

1. _Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office_
_for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and_
_Designs) of 12 September 2001 (Case R-738/2000-3);_

2. _Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market_
_(Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs._

( [1] ) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE**

**of 14 October 2003**

**in Case T-174/02: Micole Wieme v Commission of the**
**European Communities** ( [1] )

_**(Officials — Vacancy notice — Assessment of the candi-**_
_**dates’ merits — Manifest error of assessment — Abuse of**_
_**power)**_

(2003/C 304/47)

_(Language of the case: French)_

In Case T-174/02: Micole Wieme, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
J. Currall, H. Tserepa-Lacombe and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 13 July
2001 rejecting the applicant’s application for the post of head
of unit ‘Legal affairs and control of enforcement of Community
provisions’ of the ‘General Matters’ Directorate of the Taxation
and Customs Union Directorate General — the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas,
President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 14 October 2003, in which it:

1. _Dismisses the action;_

2. _Order each party to bear its own costs._

( [1] ) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE**

**of 18 September 2003**

**in Case T-241/02: Daniel Callebaut v Commission of the**
**European Communities** ( [1] )

_**(Officials — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Pro-**_
_**motion — Comparative examination of merits)**_

(2003/C 304/48)

_(Language of the case: French)_

In Case T-241/02: Daniel Callbaut, an official of the European
Communities, residing in Mondorf-les-Bains (Luxembourg),
represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers,