CELEX: C2004/059/58
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-10/04: Action brought on5 January 2004 by Carlos Leite Mateus against the Commission of the European Communities

C 59/36                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.3.2004
Grounds of the appeal:          Wrong application of Article               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                94 (likelihood of confusion), fail-
                                ure to state reasons and misuse            Applicants for the Com-       Friedrich Grimm and Engelbert
                                of powers by manifest error of             munity trade mark:            Rolli
                                assessment and inconsistency
                                with the Examiner’s decision of            Community trade mark          Community trade mark appli-
                                23 November 1999 regarding                 sought:                       cation No 847640 for word mark
                                partial rejection of the registration                                    SNIKE in relation to certain goods
                                of the mark concerned.                                                   in classes 12, 25 and 41 (Vehicles,
                                                                                                         clothing, footwear, headgear, edu-
                                                                                                         cation, entertainment,...)
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or         The applicant, Muswellbrook Ltd.
                                                                           sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                           sition proceedings:
Action brought on 9 January 2004 by Muswellbrook                           Mark or sign cited in         The national figurative mark No
Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the                        opposition:                   88222 for certain goods in
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                     class 25 (Stockings, socks, shirts,
                                                                                                         gloves, coats, footwear, sporting
                           (Case T-8/04)                                                                 footwear, ...)
                          (2004/C 59/57)                                   Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition
                                                                           sition Division:
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of       Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
the Rules of Procedure — language in which the case was submitted:         Appeal:
                              English)
                                                                           Pleas in law:                 Violation of Article 8 (1) (b) of
                                                                                                         Council Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                                         941 (1)
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
                                                                           (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
9 January 2004 by Muswellbrook Limited, Dublin, Ireland,                       Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
represented by Ms P. Koch Moreno, lawyer. Friedrich Grimm
and Engelbert Rolli were also party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that the decision which was issued on 5 November
      2003 by the First Board of Appeal of OHIM, which                     Action brought on5 January 2004 by Carlos Leite Mateus
      dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against the resolution of             against the Commission of the European Communities
      29 April 2002 in opposition procedure No B 1181/
      2002, which dismissed the opposition that was lodged
      against community trade mark application No 847640                                            (Case T-10/04)
      for the registration of the word SNIKE in relation to all
      the products of class 25 covered by the application, does
      not comply with the EC Regulations on Community                                               (2004/C 59/58)
      Trade Marks, No 40/94, and that the said decision be set
      aside;
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
—     declare that there is a risk of confusion between the
      community trade mark application with No 847640 for
      the word SNIKE in class 25 and Spanish trade mark
      No 88222, consisting of the word NIKE with device,                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      which protects identical products that also fall under               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      class 25;                                                            European Communities on 5 January 2004 by Carlos Leite
                                                                           Mateus, residing in Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Sébas-
—     order the respondent and, if applicable, the intervening             tien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne
      party to pay the costs of these proceedings.                         Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               European Communities on 14 January 2004 by Georges
                                                                          Martins, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi,
—     Annul the final decision of 20 December 2002 fixing the             Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers,
      applicant’s classification on recruitment in Grade B 3              with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      with effect from 1 March 1988;
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     Annul the Commission’s decision of 14 April 2003 in so
                                                                                far as it:
The applicant was classified in Grade B, Step 3, upon entering
the service of the Commission in March 1988 and is contesting                   —     revises and fixes, with effect from 1 June 1991, the
the appointing authority’s decision not to reclassify him after                       applicant’s classification on recruitment in Gra-
reconsidering his situation following the judgment of the                             de A 6, Step 1;
Court of Justice in Case C-389/98 P Gevaert.
                                                                                —     revises and fixes, with effect from 1 April 2000, his
In support of his claims, the applicant submits that in                               classification in Grade A 5, Step 3;
reconsidering his file, the Commission took the view that his
professional experience could be taken into account only from                   —     limits the pecuniary effects to 5 October 1005;
May 1970, the date on which he obtained the diploma
rendering him eligible for a Category B post. The applicant               —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
claims that he obtained his diploma of secondary education in
July 1964. He submits that the decision is vitiated by a
manifest error of assessment and is therefore unlawful.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of
Article 5 of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          The applicant was classified in Grade A 7, Step 3, upon
                                                                          entering the service in June 1991 with the Economic and
                                                                          Social Committee and was transferred to the Commission on
                                                                          1 November 1992. On 31 July 2002, the appointing authority
Action brought on 14 January 2004 by Georges Martins                      of the Economic and Social Committee revised and fixed his
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      recruitment on classification in Grade A 6, Step 1.
                          (Case T-11/04)
                                                                          In the applicant’s submission, the Commission was therefore
                         (2004/C 59/59)
                                                                          required to take the measures to implement that decision with
                   (Language of the case: French)                         effect from 1 November 1992, the date on which he was
                                                                          transferred to its services, and also to reconstruct his career; as
                                                                          it has failed to do so, it has infringed Articles 62 and 45 of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Staff Regulations and also the principle that an official is
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                entitled to reasonable career prospects.