CELEX: C2004/071/67
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-19/04: Action brought on 19 January 2004 by Metso Paper Automation Oy against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

C 71/38               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
Action brought on 16 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio                       Action brought on 19 January 2004 by Metso Paper
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       Automation Oy against the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                            the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                         (Case T-18/04)                                                             (Case T-19/04)
                                                                                                    (2004/C 71/67)
                        (2004/C 71/66)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           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
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  19 January 2004 by Metso Paper Automation Oy, Tampere,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 Finland, represented by J. Tanhuanpää, lawyer.
European Communities on 16 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuc-
cio, represented by Alessandro Distanto, avvocato.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     annul the contested decision (1) partially as concerns
                                                                                 refusal to register the trade mark PAPERLAB on the
                                                                                 grounds of Article 7(1)(c) CTMR (item 1 of the order).
                                                                                 The subject appeal does not apply to item 2 of the order
—     Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting
                                                                                 in which the Board of Appeal remits the case to the
      his request;
                                                                                 examiner for further prosecution on the grounds of
                                                                                 Article 7(3) CTMR;
—     Declare that the applicant is entitled, pursuant to
      Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, to reimbursement of             —     order the Office to pay the costs of the applicant.
      100 % of all medical expenses incurred by him from
      4 January 2002 until complete recovery;
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The trade mark con-           The word mark ‘PAPERLAB’ —
                                                                           cerned:                       application No 2 575 009
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Goods or service con-         Goods in Class 9 (Computer
                                                                           cerned:                       equipment and measuring instal-
                                                                                                         lations for surveying and testing
                                                                                                         of paper)
The applicant takes issue with the defendant’s refusal to                  Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
reimburse him 100 % of the medical expenses incurred by him                before the Board of           examiner
in the course of treating his illness.                                     Appeal:
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      The contested decision was
                                                                           Appeal:                       upheld insofar as it rejected the
In support of those claims, the applicant alleges infringement                                           application on the grounds of
of Article 72 of the Staff Regulation and an absolute failure to                                         Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
state reasons.                                                                                           No 40/94. The case was remitted
                                                                                                         to the examiner for further pros-
                                                                                                         ecution on the grounds of
                                                                                                         Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                                         No 40/94.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.3.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 71/39
Grounds of claim:               —    The mark ‘PAPERLAB’ is                 2)    order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                     registrable in Class 9 because
                                     it does not directly describe
                                     the goods in any manner;
                                —    The trade mark ‘PAPERLAB’              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                     can serve as a mark in trade
                                     to distinguish goods of the
                                     applicant from goods of
                                     other traders;                         The applicants in the present case, all officials and servants
                                                                            posted to the Food and Veterinary Office, Dublin, contest the
                                —    The Office for Harmonis-               pay slips and the back pay slips concerning them for the
                                     ation in the Internal Market           period since 1 July 2002.
                                     has accepted several similar
                                     trademarks.
                                                                            In support of their application, the applicants put forward a
                                                                            single plea in law challenging the validity of the weighting
(1) Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonis-       fixed for Ireland by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom)
    ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of               No 2265/2002 of 16 December 2002 (1) inasmuch as, contrary
    17 November 2003 (Case R 842/2002-1).
                                                                            to Article 64 of the Staff Regulations which lays down
                                                                            the principle of equal purchasing power between officials
                                                                            irrespective of their place of work does, that weighting does
                                                                            not offset the difference between the actual cost of living at
                                                                            their place of work and that in Brussels. Specifically, they state
                                                                            that setting the weighting at 124,8 does not meet such a
                                                                            requirement.
                                                                            (1) OJ 2002 L 347, p. 1.
Action brought on 20 January 2004 by María Pilar Aguar
Fernández and 126 others against Commission of the
                     European Communities
                           (Case T-20/04)
                           (2004/C 71/68)
                                                                            Action brought on 21 January 2004 by Fusion Electronics
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                          Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                                      (Case T-21/04)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 January 2004 by María Pilar                                                (2004/C 71/69)
Aguar Fernández and 126 others, all residing in Ireland,
represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël
Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service             (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to article 131(2)
in Luxembourg.                                                              of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the case was
                                                                                                     submitted: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1)    annul the decisions of the Commission establishing the                An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      pay slips and the back pay slips in respect of the applicants         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      since 1 July 2002 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC,                 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      Euratom) No 2265/2002 of 16 December 2002 adjusting                   21 January 2004 by Fusion Electronics Limited, Auckland,
      with effect from 1 July 2002 the remuneration and                     New Zealand, represented by Mr A. Roughton Barrister. Ford
      pensions of officials and other servants of the European              Motor Company was also a party to the proceedings before
      Communities and the weightings applied thereto;                       the Board of Appeal.