Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 101/38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 26.4.2003

Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of nondiscrimination in that the contested decisions deprived the
union of which the applicant is the secretary general of all
manner of human and material resources without taking
account of its representativeness.

**Action brought on 31 January 2003 by José Pedro**
**Pessoa e Costa against Commission of the European**
**Communities**

**(Case T-36/03)**

(2003/C 101/69)

_(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 31 January 2003 by José Pedro
Pessoa e Costa, residing in Brussels, represented by Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis et Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Commission commited an administrative
fault by not reinstating the applicant to the first vacancy
at Grade A 5 commensurate with his abilities;

—
order the Commission to reconstitute his career and, in
particular, to pay him the remuneration to which he is
entitled in respect of the period from 1 August to
31 December 2001 together with default interest calculated at the rate of 1.5 % per annum;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant, an official working for the defendant, on leave
on personal grounds until 30 June 2001, requested his
reinstatement, in accordance with Article 40(4)(d) of the Staff
Regulations of officials of the European Communities. On
30 May 2002, the applicant lodged a complaint claiming that
the defendant had failed to reinstate him to the first vacancy
corresponding to his grade and abilities. The applicant claims
that that complaint was partially rejected so far as concerns

compensation for the material damage he allegedly suffered in
the period between 1 July and 31 December 2001 and has
made the present application. In support of his arguments, he
alleges infringement of the abovementioned article of the Staff
Regulations.

**Action brought on 7 February 2003 by DaimlerChrysler**
**AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**

**(Case T-39/03)**

(2003/C 101/70)

_(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
7 February 2003 by DaimlerChrysler AG, Stuttgart, Germany,
represented by M. Trimborn, lawyer. AXON Leasing GmbH,
Grasbrunn, Germany, 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
4 November 2002 in appeal No R 329/2001-4 and
dismiss the appeal;

—
order the defendant Office to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Com- The applicant
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark The word mark ‘AXOR’ for goods
sought: and services in Classes 12 and 37
(automobiles and parts therefor
(included in Class 12) and motor
vehicle maintenance and repair)
— application No 1111061

Proprietor of mark or AXON Leasing GmbH
sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

26.4.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/39

Mark or sign cited in The German word/figurative
opposition: mark ‘AXON’ (No 1108589) for
goods and services in classes 10,
12, 35 and 36

Decision of the Oppo- Rejection of the opposition
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal: Opposition Division and referral
of the case back to the Opposition
Division

Pleas in law: — There is no similarity
between the marks opposed,
within the meaning of
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94( [1] ).

— There is no likelihood of
confusion.

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

**Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Julián Murúa**
**Entrena against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-40/03)**

(2003/C 101/71)

_(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
10 February 2003 by Julián Murúa Entrena, residing in El
Ciego, Álava (Spain), represented by Ignacio TemiñoCeniceros,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the contested decision refusing the Community
trade-mark application No 62.588 in Class 33;

—
order the parties to bear their own costs and half of the

common costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Com- Applicant
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark Figurative mark ‘Julián Murúa
sought: Entrena’ — Application
No 62.588 for products in
Class 33 (wines).

Proprietor of mark or Bodegas Murúa S.A.
sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in Spanish trade mark ‘MURUA’
opposition: and international registration
No 482.779 having effect in Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland and Benelux for products in
Class 33.

Decision of the Oppo- Opposition accepted.
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal dismissed.
Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (likelihood of confusion).

**Action brought on 10 February 2003 by La Maison de**
**l’Europe Avignon-Méditerranée against Commission of**
**the European Communities**

**(Case T-43/03)**

(2003/C 101/72)

_(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 10 February 2003 by La Maison
de l’Europe Avignon-Méditerranée, established in Avignon
(France), represented by François Martineau, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
order the defendant to pay EUR 100 000 to make good
the damage suffered by La Maison de l’Europe AvignonMéditerranée as a result of the disclosure of deceitful,