Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

18.10.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/15

—
annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
the defendant of 30 April 2003 in appeal proceedings
R 913/2001-4;

— instruct the defendant to make a determination on the
merits in opposition proceedings B 288680, taking
account of the legal view of the matter formed by the
adjudicating court;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for Community ECI Telecom Ltd.
trade mark:

Community trade mark Word mark ‘Hi-FOCuS’ in respect
sought: of goods and services in Classes 9
and 38 — application No
1 338 029

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

The applicant

Mark or sign cited in The German mark ‘FOCUS’ (No
opposition: 394 07 564) in respect of goods
and services in Classes 3, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24,
25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 38,
39, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposi- Rejection of the opposition
tion Division:

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the applicant's
Appeal: appeal

Pleas in law: — Submission in the opposition proceedings of adequate
evidence of the applicant's
earlier right;

—
Infringement of the applicant's right to a hearing;

—
Infringement of the applicant's right of due process;

— Infringement of Article
42 of Regulation (EC) No
40/94 ( [1] ) and Rule 20(3)
of Regulation (EC) No
2868/95 ( [2] ).

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
( [2] ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995
implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

**Action** **brought** **on** **5** **August** **2003** **by** **Galileo**
**International Technology LLC and 13 Others against the**
**Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-279/03)**

(2003/C 251/29)

(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 5 August 2003 by Claude
Delcorde, Jean-Noël Louis, Julie-Anne Delcorde and Spyros
Maniatopoulos, lawyers, represented by Claude Delcorde,
Jean-Noël Louis, Julie-Anne Delcorde and Spyros
Maniatopoulos, lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—
Prohibit the Commission from making any use of the
word ‘Galileo’ in relation to the satellite radio navigation
system project and to cease causing directly or indirectly
any third party whatsoever to use that word in the context of that project, and prohibit it from having any part
whatsoever in the use of that word by any third party;

—
order the Commission to pay the applicants, acting
jointly and severally, the amount of EUR 50 million as
compensation for the material damage suffered;

In the alternative,

— in the event that the Commission continues to use
the word ‘Galileo’, order it to pay the applicants an
amount of EUR 240 million;

—
order the Commission to pay the applicant, as from
the date of filing of the application, default interest
calculated by reference to the ECB rate plus 2 per
cent;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

C 251/16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 18.10.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, who are the proprietors of a number of trade
marks and company names containing the word ‘Galileo’ as an
essential component, argue that the adoption of that word by
the Commission as the name for the Community project on
the European satellite radio navigation system infringes their
trade mark rights.

The action is based on Article 288 of the EC Treaty. The
applicants claim there is a likelihood of confusion based on
the alleged similarity between the signs in question and
between the goods and services sold by the applicants and
the subject-matter of the Community project. They also claim
that the Commission acted unfairly and negligently with regard
to their rights, and plead infringement of the principle of
proportionality.

**Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Van Mannekus &**
**Co. B.V. against the Council of the European Union**

**(Case T-280/03)**

(2003/C 251/30)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 August 2003 by Van Mannekus & Co. B.V.,
Schiedam (Netherlands), represented by H. Bleier, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul Council Regulation (EC) No 986/2003 of 5 June
2003 amending the antidumping measures imposed by
Regulation (EC) No 360/2000 on imports of dead-burned
(scintered) magnesia originating in the People's Republic
of China ( [1] );

—
order the Council of the European Union to pay all the
costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested regulation the Council altered the nature of
antidumping duties on imports of dead-burned magnesia originating in the People's Republic of China on the basis of a
partial interim review.

The pleas in law and arguments of the applicant are the same
as in Case T-278/03 (Van Mannekus v Council).

( [1] ) OJ L 143, p. 5.

**Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Xanthippi Liakoura**
**against the Council of the European Union**

**(Case T-281/03)**

(2003/C 251/31)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 5 August 2003 by Xanthippi Liakoura,
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Council of 5 May 2003 in so far
as it does not:

1. delete, from the definitive report for the period from
1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001, the following words
included under general observations: ‘She is encouraged to resume tasks of coordination and distribution
of work in the Pool which she has performed
efficiently in the past’;

2. include a reference in that report to her ‘capacity for
mobility and versatility’;

—
order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant takes issue with the appointing authority's
refusal to delete one phrase and include another in her staff
report for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001.