Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

23.11.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 289/31

**Action brought on 20 September 2002 by Eva Vega**
**Rodríguez against Commission of the European Com-**
**munities**

**(Case T-285/02)**

(2002/C 289/57)

_(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 20 September 2002 by Eva Vega
Rodríguez, residing in Brussels, represented by Juan Ramón
Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Commission of 25 June 2002;

—
order that she be paid compensation to make good the
damage suffered by her in the amount of EUR 72 292,36,
subject to all manner of reservations, together with
default interest at the statutory rate;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant in the present case, who applied to take part
in Competition COM/A/10/01, challenges the removal of
question 25 from Test A of the selection procedure, following
the discovery of an alleged error in it. That decision prevented
her from obtaining the minimum requisite number of marks
and led to her failing that part of the test.

In support of her arguments, and with regard to the content
of the abovementioned question, the applicant claims that the
Protocol incorporating the Schengen acquis into the European
Union is indeed the Second Protocol attached to the Treaty of
Amsterdam and not, as the Commission claims, Decision
1999/436/EC.

**Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Oriental**
**Kitchen SARL against Office for the Harmonisation of**
**the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-286/02)**

(2002/C 289/58)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against 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
23 September 2002 by Oriental Kitchen SARL, whose registered office is in Choisy-le-Roi (France), represented by JeanJacques Sebag, lawyer. Mou Dybfros A/S, Esbjerg (Denmark)
was also an intervener in the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the appeal decision of 28 June 2002 of the Office
for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market;

—
vary the decision of the Office for the Harmonisation of
the Internal Market of 11 December 2000;

—
reject the opposition made by Mou Dybfros A/S;

—
uphold the registration of the trade mark KIAP MOU
sought by Oriental Kitchen;

—
order Mou Dybfros A/S to pay all the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for the Com- the applicant
munity trade mark:

The Community trade the word mark ‘KIAP MOU’ regismark concerned: tered for goods in Classes 29 and
30 (including meat and prepared
dishes) — application No 950667

Proprietor of the right to Mou Dybfros A/S
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of opposition in the opposition
proceedings:

Trade mark or sign the national trade mark ‘MOU’,
asserted by way of oppo- registered for goods in Classes 29
sition in the opposition and 30
proceedings:

C 289/32 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 23.11.2002

Decision of the Oppo- rejection of the application for
sition Division: registration

Decision of the Board of rejection of the applicant’s appeal
Appeal:

Grounds of claim: — since the word ‘mou’ in Laotian and Thai means ‘porc’,
the trade mark ‘MOU’ is
merely descriptive and thus
may not be protected;

— registration of the trade
mark ‘MOU’ would in fact
prevent the use of a word
with meaning which must be
used in order to describe the
nature of the product to be
sold.

**Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Asian Institute**
**of Technology against Commission of the European**
**Communities**

**(Case T-287/02)**

(2002/C 289/59)

_(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 23 September 2002 by the Asian
Institute of Technology, whose registered office is at Klong
Luang (Thailand), represented by Henri Teissier du Cros,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the European Commission of 4 July
2000 to conclude a research contract with the director of
the ‘Center Energy-Environment Research and Development’ (CEERD) of the Asian Institute of Technology.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The Commission, by the contested decision, entered into a
research contract with the ‘Center Energy-Environment
Research and Development’, represented by its director. That
centre is a department of the applicant with no legal personality.

According to the applicant, the director of the ‘Center EnergyEnvironment Research and Development’ had no mandate to
conclude such a contract. The Commission thus infringed the

principle of sound administration in that it did not ascertain
the powers of the director of the ‘Center Energy-Environment
Research and Development’, which is merely a department of
the applicant with no legal personality.

**Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Asian Institute**
**of Technology against Commission of the European**
**Communities**

**(Case T-288/02)**

(2002/C 289/60)

_(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 23 September 2002 by the Asian
Institute of Technology, whose registered office is at Klong
Luang (Thailand), represented by Henri Teissier du Cros,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the European Commission of
22 February 2002 to conclude a research contract with
the alleged director of the ‘Center Energy-Environment
Research and Development’ (CEERD) of the Asian Institute of Technology.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The Commission, by the contested decision, entered into a
research contract with the ‘Center Energy-Environment
Research and Development’, allegedly represented by its director. That centre is a department of the applicant with no legal
personality. The applicant further states that the person
who signed the contract as director of the ‘Center EnergyEnvironment Research and Development’ left the department
on 31 December 2001. The contract was a follow-up contract
to that at issue in Case T-287/02.

According to the applicant, the alleged director of the ‘Center
Energy-Environment Research and Development’ had no mandate to conclude such a contract. The Commission thus
infringed the principle of sound administration in that it did
not ascertain the powers of the director nor whether the
person concerned was in fact a director.