Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

18.10.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/19

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 April 2003 in Case
No R 221/2002-4;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for Com- The applicant
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark Figurative mark ‘XTREME RIGHT
sought: GUARD SPORT’ in respect of
goods in Class 3 (non-medicated
preparations for use in the bath
or shower; anti-perspirants;
deodorants; all included in
Class 3) — application
No 1486745

**Action brought on 13 August 2003 by TeleTech Holdings,**
**Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-288/03)**

(2003/C 251/36)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

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
13 August 2003 by TeleTech Holdings, Inc., established in
Denver, Colorado, (USA), represented by E. Armijo Chávarri
and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM
of 28 May 2003 in Case R-412/2000-1 and, subject to
the appropriate procedural steps, give judgment upholding either the applicant's principal claim or its alternative
claim.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Wilkinson Sword GmbH

Mark or sign cited in The German figurative marks
opposition: ‘WILKINSON SWORD EXTREME’
(Nos 399 23 715 and 399 45 175)
in respect of goods in Class 3
(shaving cosmetics)

Decision of the Rejection of the opposition
Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal: Opposition Division and refusal
of the applicant's application for
registration

Pleas in law: — Infringement of Article 8(1)
(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94;

—
No likelihood of confusion;

—
No similarity between the
opposing marks.

Community trade mark
in respect of which
declaration of invalidity
sought:

Owner of the Community trade mark in
respect of which
declaration of invalidity
sought:

Person applying for a Teletech International S.A. (owner
declaration of invalidity: of the national word mark
‘TELETECH INTERNATIONAL’),
in respect of certain goods within
Class 35 (business management
for technical services, customer
relations and call centres) and
Class 38 (telecommunications
services).

Decision of the Application upheld in part
Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal upheld, solely in so far as
Appeal: the contested decision declared
the Community mark in issue
invalid in respect of ‘business
management assistance services
consisting of facilities manage
’
ment and site selection services .

Word mark ‘TELETECH GLOBAL
VENTURES’ — Registered trade
mark No 134.908, for products
in Classes 35 and 38.

The applicant.

C 251/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 18.10.2003

Pleas in law: — Breach of the principles of
the coexistence of
Community marks and
national marks and signs
and of the applicant's rights
of defence.

—
In the alternative, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

**Action brought on 21 August 2003 by Carla Giulietti**
**against Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-293/03)**

(2003/C 251/37)

(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 21 August 2003 by Carla
Giulietti, residing in Brussels, represented by P.-P. van
Gehuchten and J. Sambon, lawyers, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision taken by the Selection Board in competition COM/A/6/01 to exclude the applicant on the
ground of lack of professional experience, that decision
being contained in the letter from DG ADMIN to the
applicant dated 16 October 2002;

—
annul the confirmative decision of 21 November 2002;

—
annul the belated express rejection by the appointing
authority on 11 June 2003 of the applicant's administrative appeal;

—
order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was a candidate in General Competition COM/
A/6/01 to constitute a reserve for the recruitment of administrators in the fields of external relations and management of
aid to non-member countries. The notice of competition contained the requirement of professional experience at a level
commensurate with that of the duties described, for a minimum period of three years. However, it was stated that officials
and other servants of the European Communities were not
required to have the abovementioned professional experience
if they had served in category B for at least three years and had
successfully completed a university course.

Upon submitting her candidature, the applicant submitted as
evidence of her professional experience the fact that she had
served for more than three years as President of the
Management Board of the Foundation ‘Eau pour le Sahel’. By
the contested decision, the Selection Board excluded her on the
ground that she did not have the professional experience
required.

In support of her action, the applicant claims that the clause
relating to professional experience infringed the principle of
equality owing to the fact that such experience is required only
for external candidates, while it is not a requirement for candidates who are already officials or other servants of the
European Communities. She also alleges infringement of the
principle of legality and a manifest error of assessment in the
application by the Selection Board of the clause relating to
professional experience.