Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 289/36 EN Official Journal of the European Union 29.11.2003

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for the Com- Whitbread PLC.
munity mark:

Community mark for Figurative mark ‘David Lloyd’ —
which application was Application No 488.999 for
made: products in Classes 3, 5, 25, 28,
36, 41 and 42.

Holder of the mark or Applicant
sign bringing the opposition proceedings:

Opposing mark or sign: No 807.974/9 and No 278.853
‘LLOYD’S’, for goods in Class 25
(clothing and general accessories)

Decision of the Oppo- Opposition rejected
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal dismissed
Appeal:

Reasons relied on: Incorrect application of
Article 8(1)(b) (likelihood of confusion), 8(2)(c) (well known earlier
mark) and 8(5) Regulation (EC)
No 40/94

**Action brought on 30 September 2003 by European**
**Dynamics S.A. against the Commission of the European**
**Communities**

**(Case T-345/03)**

(2003/C 289/72)

_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 September 2003 by European
Dynamics S.A., Athens, (Greece), represented by S. Pappas,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the Commission’s (Enterprise Directorate General)
decision to evaluate European Dynamics’ tender as not
successful;

—
order the Commission (Enterprise Directorate General) to
re-evaluate the tender submitted by European Dynamics;

—
order the Commission to pay European Dynamics’ legal
and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with
this Application.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The object of the present case is the annulment of the Decision
of the European Commission to reject the applicants bid, filed
in response to the Call of Tender ENTR/02/055 — CORDIS
for the ‘Development and Provision of Services in support of
the Community R&D Information Service (CORDIS)’ Lot 2
‘Development’ (OJ 2002/S 225-178776). This Decision concluded that the TRASYS/Intrasoft International Consortium
bid was superior to that of the applicant.

CORDIS, the European Commission’s research and development information service, is an informatics tool offering
practical information on the European research programs and
funding opportunities, facilitating research results take up
and and technology transfers, hosting services on European
innovation, covering all research and innovation related news
developments and providing a central access to European and
National contact points

In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits that:

—
The violation of the principles of transparency and nondiscrimination, in as much as the provisions on nonpaid running-in periods seriously restrict competition by
favouring the incumbent contractor since it has been
given major financial advantages by the contracting
authority unilateral, which allowed it to submit an offer
significantly cheaper that any other competitor. Besides,
the time-limit for providing information about the role
of Autonomy in CORDIS (Enterprise Directorate General
addresses such information just four weeks before the
tender submission deadline) has given a big advantage to
the TRASYS/Intrasoft consortium in relation to other
Lot 2 tenderers. Additionally, ensuring the call for tender
procedure, all bidders -except the incumbent contractor
— were prevented from having access to a number of
highly critical technical information on the actual status
of the CORDIS projects and particularly on the CORDIS
DATABASE SERVICE. Moreover, the Commission
declined to communicate to all tenderers significant and
useful details on the HW/SW, scripts, technology and
processes currently in use for operating the CORDIS
database services, while, at the same time, it asked
the tenderers to specify what part of that ‘unknown’
equipment is to be taken over, whilst all this information
was fully available to TRASYS/Intrasoft right from the
beginning.

29.11.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 289/37

—
The Commission’s assessments are based on wrong or
unfounded assumptions. Contrary to what has been
stated by the Commission, the proposed platform by the
applicant was explained in great detail. Concretely, the
Commission wrongly assumed that the Service Delivery
Framework was not ITIL and that there was no mention

of Prince2. All other assessments are not supported by
the data of the file.

The applicant also invokes a violation of the duty of motivation
of the legal acts.