Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 200/32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.8.2003

**Action brought on 23 June 2003 by Ulf Jacoby against the**
**Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade**
**Marks and Designs)**

**(Case T-242/03)**

(2003/C 200/57)

_(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of_
_the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was_
_submitted: 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
23 June 2003 by Ulf Jacoby, Lahnau (Germany), represented
by K. Müller, lawyer, of Kanzlei Krieger Froese & Kollegen. Leo
Pharmaceutical Products BV, Weesp (Netherlands), was also a
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
14.3.2003, thereby granting the applicant's application to
the Board of Appeal for _restitutio in integrum_, occasioned
by his failure to observe the time-limit for payment of the
appeal fee;

—
declare that the appeal is to be regarded as having been
lodged.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant sought registration of the word mark ‘leovat’
with the defendant office in respect of goods in Classes 3, 4, 5
and 31 (application No 657221). Leo Pharmaceutical Products
BV, proprietor of the international word mark ‘Leo’ for goods
in Classes 3 and 5, lodged an opposition to registration.

By decision of 6 July 2001, the Opposition Division allowed
the opposition on the ground that there was a likelihood of
confusion owing to the high level of similarity of the goods
and the signs. The applicant lodged an appeal against that
decision in good time. On 19 September 2001, the Registry of
the Board of Appeal informed the applicant that the appeal fee
had not been received by the office before the expiry, on
6 September 2001, of the time-limit for bringing an appeal,
and gave the applicant the opportunity to submit his observations on the matter. On 24 September 2001 the applicant
effected payment of the appeal fee and simultaneously applied

for _restitutio in integrum_ occasioned by his failure to pay the
appeal fee in good time.

By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal rejected the
application and declared that the appeal was to be regarded as
not having been lodged.

The applicant submits that usually time-limits are entered in a
diary for that purpose kept by his former lawyer in order to
comply with and monitor the time-limits for bringing appeals
and payment of the appeal fee, and the time-limits are only
then crossed out of that diary after they have been observed.
In order to avoid any accidental crossing out of an entry in
the diary, the member of that lawyer's staff responsible for
overseeing the time-limits is required to initial any crossing out
of a deadline. Since that long-standing, consistently reliable
member of his staff had crossed out and initialled the timelimit entered in respect of the appeal case, the lawyer acting
for the applicant was entitled to assume that the appeal fee
had been paid in good time. Since the failure to observe the
time-limit for payment of the appeal fee was not caused by
any fault of the lawyer acting for the applicant, the application
for _restitutio in integrum_ is founded and the action must be
granted.

**Action brought on 30 June 2003 by Flavia Angeletti**
**against the Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-244/03)**

(2003/C 200/58)

_(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 30 June 2003 by Flavia Angeletti,
residing in Nice (France), represented by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvolvé, avocats.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Directorate-General Personnel
and Administration of 5 May 2003;

—
order a challenge to two of the members of the medical
committee;

—
order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.