Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

25.1.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/37

The pleas in law and main arguments put forward are identical
to those in Case T-338/02.

( [1] ) Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the
application of specific measures to combat terrorism, OJ L 344,
of 28.12.2001, p. 93.
( [2] ) Council Common Position of 2 May 2002 updating Common
Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures
to combat terrorism, OJ L 116, of 3.5.2002, p. 75.
( [3] ) Council Common Position of 17 June 2002 updating Common
Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures
to combat terrorism and repealing Common Position 2002/340/
CFSP, OJ L 160, of 18.6.2002, p. 32.

**Action brought on 13 November 2002 by B.V. Bureau**
**Wijsmuller** **Scheepvaart-Transport** **en** **Zeesleepvaart**
**Maatschappij against the Commission of the European**
**Communities**

**(Case T-340/02)**

(2003/C 19/71)

_(Language of the case: Dutch)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 November 2002 by B.V.
Bureau Wijsmuller Scheepvaart-Transport en Zeesleepvaart
Maatschappij, with its registered office in IJsmuiden (Netherlands), represented by M.J.J.M. Essers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) Primarily, annul the Commission’s decision of 19 June
2002 (C(2002) 2158 final) concerning State aid provided
by the Netherlands for the activities of Netherlands
tugboats operating within seaports and on inland waterways of the Community;

(2) In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the contested
Commission decision, in which the Commission requires
the Netherlands Government inter alia to adopt all
measures necessary to recover the aid from recipients,
with the exception of that aid which was granted prior to
12 September 1990;

(3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The pleas in law submitted are identical to those in Case
T-326/02.

**Action brought on 8 November 2002 by Metro-Goldwin-**
**Mayer Lion Corporation against the Office for Harmon-**
**ization in the Internal Market**

**(Case T-342/02)**

(2003/C 19/72)

_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 November 2002 by MetroGoldwin-Mayer Lion Corporation, Santa Monica, California
(United States of America),represented by Fernand de Visscher,
Emmanuel Cornu, Eric De Gryse, Donatienne Moreau, avocats.
A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
was Moser Grupo Media, S.L., Santa Eulalia Del Rio (Baleares Spain).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
uphold the claim for annulment;

—
annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
5 September 2002;

—
confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of
19 February 2001 insofar as it upholds the Opposition
number B 47730 for all the contested goods and services
and rejects application for registration n [o] 409664 in its
entirety on the basis of applicant’s national registrations
of the trademark ‘MGM’;

—
annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 19 February 2001 insofar as it does not admit as ground for
rejection applicant’s CTM n [o] 141820 of the trademark
‘MGM’ or, in subsidiary order, insofar as it does not admit
as ground for rejection the earlier national trade mark
registrations in Austria, Greece and the United Kingdom;

—
condemn the Office to the costs of the proceedings.

C 19/38 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25.1.2003

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for the Com- Moser Grupo Media, S.L.
munity trade mark:

The Community trade The figurative trade mark ‘Moser
mark concerned: Grupo Media, s.l.’ for goods and
services in classes 9, 16, 38, 39
and 41 (application n [o] 409664)

Proprietor of the right to The applicant, Metro-Goldwinthe trade mark or sign Mayer Lion Corporation
asserted by way of opposition in the opposition
proceedings:

Trade mark or sign Several national rights and comasserted by way of oppo- munity trade mark application
sition in the opposition n [o] 141820 of the word mark
proceedings: ‘MGM’ for goods and services in
classes 9, 38 and 41

Decision of the Oppo- Rejection of the community trade
sition Division: mark application n [o] 409664 of
Moser Grupo Media, disregarding
some of the earlier rights and
community trade mark applicationn [o] 141820 by the applicant
in the present case for the word
mark ‘MGM’

Decision of the Board of Rejection of the appeal by the
Appeal: opponent, applicant in the present case, as inadmissible

Grounds of claim: — Infringement of Article 58 of
Regulation 40/94( [1] )in so far
as the applicant is adversely
affected by the decision of
the Opposition Division.
According to the applicant,
it is still possible for Moser
Grupo Media to convert its
community trade mark
application in other
countries with the advantage
of using the date of its Community trade mark application. This would not have
been possible if the trade
mark application had been
rejected on the grounds of
the applicant’s Community
trade mark application.

— Violation of Articles 42 and
8 of Regulation 40/94.
According to the applicant,
an opposition can be based
on an earlier community trade mark application that is
not yet registered as a trade
mark.

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

**Action brought on 15 November 2002 by Roland Schint-**
**gen against Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-343/02)**

(2003/C 19/73)

_(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 15 November 2002 by Roland
Schintgen, residing in Keispelt (Luxembourg), represented by
Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority
on 16 July 2002 rejecting the complaint lodged by the
applicant on 28 February 2002 requesting the annulment
of the elections to the local staff committee, the appointment of the elected members to the staff committee and
the refusal by the Commission to annul the aforementioned elections and declare that the local staff committee
in Luxembourg, formed following the said elections, was
not validly constituted;

—
annul, in so far as necessary, the abovementioned elections to the localstaff committeein Luxembourg, together
with the appointment of the elected members consequent
thereupon and annul the refusal by the Commission to
annul the elections and declare unlawful the composition
of the local staff committee in Luxembourg which
resulted therefrom;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings and
the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the
proceedings, in particular the travel and subsistence
expenses and the remuneration of lawyers.