Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

27.10.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303/23

In support of his action for annulment, the applicant also Grounds of claim: Incorrect interpretation of
alleges infringement of the guidelines adopted by the Com- article 7 (1) (b) of the Council
mission on 18 September 1999, breach of the principle of Regulation No 40/94 — The mark
equal treatment and psychological harassment in the work is sufficiently distinctive. The
place. Finally the applicant claims compensation for damage Applicant claims further that the
he claims to have suffered. burden to proof otherwise lays
with the Board of Appeal. It is not
up to the Applicant to show that
article 7(1) (b) of the Council
Regulation No 40/94 is not applicable.

**Action brought on 14 August 2001 by Unilever N.V.**
**against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal**

**Market**

**(Case T-194/01)**

(2001/C 303/37)
**Action brought on 20 August 2001 by the Government**
**of Gibraltar against the Commission of the European**
_(Language of the case: English)_ **Communities**

An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal **(Case T-195/01)**
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 August 2001 by Unilever N.V.,
a company registered in Rotterdam (Netherlands) represented (2001/C 303/38)
by Dr. Verna von Bomhard and Dr. Andreas Renck of Lovells
Boesebeck Droste, Alicante (Spain).
_(Language of the case: English)_

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— An action against the Commission of the European Communialter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade
European Communities on 20 August 2001 by the GovernMarks and Designs) of 22 May 2001 (Case R 1086/
ment of Gibraltar, represented by Alastair Sutton, Michael
2000-1) to provide that the trade mark at hand is eligible Llamas and Walter Schuster, of White & Case, Brussels
for registration as a Community trade mark;
(Belgium).

—
alternatively, the decision be annulled;

— The applicant claims that the Court should:
order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

—
annul the Commission’s decision to open the procedure
under Article 88(2), in the form of the letter of 11 July
_Pleas in law and main arguments_ 2001 addressed to the United Kingdom;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

Applicant for the Com- Unilever N.V.
munity trade mark:

_Pleas in law and main arguments_
The Community trade Three dimensional mark (Pebble
mark concerned: shape) — Application
No 1 418 250 for certain goods
in class 3 The Government of Gibraltar introduced a tax scheme under
which certain companies, under certain conditions, were
Decision of the Exam- Rejection of the Application exempt from income tax and subject only to a fixed tax (the
iner: exempt company legislation). That legislation was modified by
several amendments before and after the accession of the
Decision of the Board of Partial acceptance of the Appeal United Kingdom and Gibraltar to the European Communities
Appeal: in 1973.