Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

20.3.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 71/39

Grounds of claim: — The mark ‘PAPERLAB’ is
registrable in Class 9 because
it does not directly describe
the goods in any manner;

— The trade mark ‘PAPERLAB’
can serve as a mark in trade
to distinguish goods of the
applicant from goods of
other traders;

— The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
has accepted several similar
trademarks.

( [1] ) Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of
17 November 2003 (Case R 842/2002-1).

**Action brought on 20 January 2004 by María Pilar Aguar**
**Fernández and 126 others against Commission of the**
**European Communities**

**(Case T-20/04)**

(2004/C 71/68)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 January 2004 by María Pilar
Aguar Fernández and 126 others, all residing in Ireland,
represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël
Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1) annul the decisions of the Commission establishing the
pay slips and the back pay slips in respect of the applicants
since 1 July 2002 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC,
Euratom) No 2265/2002 of 16 December 2002 adjusting
with effect from 1 July 2002 the remuneration and
pensions of officials and other servants of the European
Communities and the weightings applied thereto;

2) order the Commission to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicants in the present case, all officials and servants
posted to the Food and Veterinary Office, Dublin, contest the
pay slips and the back pay slips concerning them for the
period since 1 July 2002.

In support of their application, the applicants put forward a
single plea in law challenging the validity of the weighting
fixed for Ireland by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom)
No 2265/2002 of 16 December 2002 ( [1] ) inasmuch as, contrary
to Article 64 of the Staff Regulations which lays down
the principle of equal purchasing power between officials
irrespective of their place of work does, that weighting does
not offset the difference between the actual cost of living at
their place of work and that in Brussels. Specifically, they state
that setting the weighting at 124,8 does not meet such a
requirement.

( [1] ) OJ 2002 L 347, p. 1.

**Action brought on 21 January 2004 by Fusion Electronics**
**Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-21/04)**

(2004/C 71/69)

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

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
21 January 2004 by Fusion Electronics Limited, Auckland,
New Zealand, represented by Mr A. Roughton Barrister. Ford
Motor Company was also a party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal.

C 71/40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.3.2004

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated
the 17 November 2003;

—
direct that the applicant’s application for a declaration of
invalidity fails;

—
order the Office to pay the appellant’s costs here and
below or order the Office to pay the appellant’s costs
here and direct that the applicant pay the appellant’s costs
below.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Community trade mark Word Mark ‘FUSION’ — Applisought: cation No 1061050 for products
within class 9 (Audio, video and
security equipment for vehicles).

Proprietor of mark or The Applicant.
sign whose cancellation
is sought:

Applicant for cancel- Ford Motor Company, in relation
lation: to Community trade mark registration No 747121 of the word
mark ‘FUSION’ for goods in classes 12 (Motor land vehicles and
parts and fittings therefore) and
37 (Motor vehicles maintenance
and repair services).

Decision of the Cancel- Application upheld.
lation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal dismissed.
Appeal:

Pleas in law: — The notion of similarity of
customers as set out in the
contested decision is wrong.

— The conclusion that the
goods set out in the respective registrations are at least
similar is wrong.

**Action brought on 22 January 2004 by González y Díez**
**S.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-**
**ties**

**(Case T-25/04)**

(2004/C 71/70)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 January 2004 by González y
Díez S.A., whose registered office is at Villabona-Llanera
(Asturias, Spain), represented by J. Díez-Hochleitner and
A. Martínez Sánchez, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul in their entirety Articles 1, 3 and 4 of the
Commission decision of 5 November 2003 on aid for
González y Díez S.A. to cover exceptional expenses. (aid
for 2001 and misuse of aid for 1998 and 2000), and in
so far as that decision amends Decision 2002/827/ECSC;
and

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The Decision challenged in the present proceedings abrogates
Articles 1, 2 and 5 of Decision 2002/827/ECSC of 2 July 2002
on the granting by Spain of aid to the undertaking González y
Díez S.A. in 1998, 2000 and 2001. That decision has already
been the subject of a previous action, brought by the same
company ( [1] ).

The Decision challenged:

—
states in Article 1 that certain aid for the coal industry
granted to the applicant to cover exceptional restructuring costs totalling EUR 3131726,47 constitutes an abuse
of Commission Decisions 98/637/ECSC ( [2] ) and 2001/
162/ECSC ( [3] ) of 3 June 1998 and 13 December 2000
respectively on the granting by Spain of aid to the
coal industry in 1998 and 2000 and are, therefore,
incompatible with the common market;