Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

11.8.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 227/21

— the verbal element contained **Action brought on 27 April 2001 by Mystery Drinks**
in the trade mark applied for **GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
is not in itself subject to any **Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**
absolute ground for refusal
— there is no ground for refusal **(Case T-99/01)**
on the basis of a lack of dis
tinctiveness.
(2001/C 227/42)

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1). _(Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with_
_Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Language in which the_
_application was drafted: 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
27 April 2001 by Mystery Drinks GmbH, of Epperthausen
**Action brought on 30 April 2001 by A. Seisenbacher** (Germany), represented by Dr Thomas Jestaedt, Dr Verena von
**Gesellschaft m.b.H. against the Commission of the Euro-** Bomhard and Dr Andreas Renck, lawyers. A further party
**pean Communities** before the Board of Appeal was Karlsberg Brauerei KG Weber,
of Homburg (Germany).

**(Case T-93/01)**
The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
(2001/C 227/41) annul the decision of Third Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 12 February 2001 (R 251/2000-3);

_(Language of the case: German)_ — order the defendant to pay the costs.

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the _Pleas in law and main arguments_
European Communities on 30 April 2001 by A. Seisenbacher
Gesellschaft m.b.H., represented by Dr Johannes Stieldorf, Applicant for the Com- the applicant
Lawyer. munity trade mark:

The applicant claims that the Court should: Community trade mark the figurative mark ‘MYSTERY’ for
— applied for: goods in Classes 29 and 30 and
order the European Community to pay the applicant the ‘non-alcoholic drinks with the
sum of ECU 59 694,44 together with interest at 13 %
exception of non-alcoholic beer’
from 20 October 1998 and the costs of the case.
in Class 32.

Proprietor of the right Karlsberg Brauerei KG Weber
_Pleas in law and main arguments_ to a trade mark or sign
asserted in the opposition proceedings:
Following an invitation to tender concerning the renovation
of the European Community building in Kiev, a contract was
Right to a trade mark or the word mark ‘MIXERY’ for ‘beer
concluded between Ost-Invest und Bauprojektmanagement
GmbH. and the Commission. On account of the financial sign asserted: and drinks containing beer’ in
Class 32
situation of that company, the applicant as general contractor
was to fulfil that contract vis-à-vis the Commission.
Decision of the Oppo- dismissal of the opposition
sition Division:
After the restored building had been handed over, the applicant
requested settlement of its final account of ECU 59 694,44. Decision of the Board of cancellation of the decision of the
Following investigations the applicant discovered that payment Appeal: Opposition Division, in so far
of ECU 55 000,00 had been made to another company, a fact as the likelihood of confusion
which is, however, immaterial to the relationship between the between the opposing mark and
applicant and the defendant. The applicant brings an action goods in Class 32, namely ‘nonpursuant to Article 238 EC and demands payment of the final alcoholic drinks with the excepaccount. tion of non-alcoholic beer’,
referred to in the application was
denied, and dismissal of the
appeal as to the remainder.

C 227/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 11.8.2001

Grounds of claim: — Misapplication of Article the applicant was allocated a post which in her view is
8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) considerably less important and offers considerably fewer
No 40/94 ( [1] ) (likelihood of promotion prospects. According to the applicant, if the
confusion) principles laid down in Article 141 EC had been implemented
— the opposing signs are sub- in due time and in full, she ought to have obtained the post of
stantially different typo- principal departmental manager for ‘Personnel and Adminisgraphically, conceptually and tration’. She submits that she has thereby suffered substantial
in their sound, and the rel- material and non-material harm and that, in her case, her
evant goods are dissimilar. employer has since 1994 committed all breaches of fundamental and human rights, without legal consequences, on the basis
of the employer’s ‘organisational freedom’.
( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

She contends that, when requests are made before national
courts for an order for reference under Article 234 EC, a
hearing in accordance with the law is refused. All the judicial
proceedings brought by the applicant in respect of European
fundamental rights have terminated at first instance since leave
to appeal has likewise been refused. Her constitutional appeals
have not been accepted for determination, without any reasons
**Action brought on 13 April 2001 by Karola Gluiber** being given. In the applicant’s submission, there has been no
**against the Commission of the European Communities** review of the breaches of fundamental rights arising from the
Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union.
**(Case T-100/01)**

(2001/C 227/43)

The applicant contends that the material legal provisions in
_(Language of the Case: German)_ the Federal Republic of Germany require proof of individual
fault on the part of the civil servant acting as a precondition for
claims for damages against public authorities. Compensation is
An action against the Commission of the European Communitherefore not payable to civil servants without proof of special
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
damage in the case of breaches of fundamental rights arising
European Communities on 13 April 2001 by Karola Gluiber,
from the Treaty on European Union.
Osterhofen (Germany), represented by Christoph Bleckenwegner, Lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
declare that the Commission has failed to act pursuant to She relies on Articles 5 and 6 of the Treaty on European
the second and third paragraphs of the EC Treaty, in Union, in conjunction with the Social Charter and the Charter
conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 232 of of Fundamental Rights, and on provisions of Council Directive
the Treaty of Amsterdam, by supervising incorrectly the 75/117, and submits that the Commission has not complied
implementation and application of European legal rules with its obligation to monitor implementation of Union law
into German national law; and of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in
national German law. The Commission did not act when called
— declare that the Commission has failed to define its on to do so by the applicant pursuant to Article 232 EC and
position on the substance of her call on it to act pursuant has not responded to the substance of her complaint.
to the second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty, in
conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 232 of
the Treaty of Amsterdam;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.
She pleads various situations as examples of infringements of
fundamental rights and discrimination at the workplace, as
well as of discrimination against women.
_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant has worked since 1986 as a federal civil servant
in the Straßenneubauamt (New Highway Construction Office)
Bad Kreuznach in the service of the Land Rheinland-Pfalz. In
1994 that office was amalgamated with the Straßenneubauverwaltung (New Highway Construction Administration) Bad
Kreuznach and, on the allocation of posts in the new office,