CELEX: C2003/184/98
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-184/03: Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Metrovacesa SA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)

C 184/44              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           2.8.2003
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Metrovacesa SA
      Parliament to pay those costs.                                       against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                    Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Parlia-                                        (Case T-184/03)
ment's decision changing the method of calculating annual
travel expenses to Greece.
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the                                               (2003/C 184/98)
applicants in support of their application are similar to those
of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                                                                                              (Language of the case: Spanish)
(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
(2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.
                                                                           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
Action brought on 26 May 2003 by Applied Molecular                         21 May 2003 by Metrovacesa SA, (Madrid), represented by José
Evolution, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the                Antonio Calderón Chavero, lawyer at the Madrid Bar.
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                          (Case T-183/03)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (2003/C 184/97)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM
                                                                                 of 10 March 2003 in Case R-183/2002;
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                           —     dismiss in its entirety opposition procedure no B262.271;
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
26 May 2003 by Applied Molecular Evolution, Inc., San Diego,               —     uphold the claims of the appellant and allow the relevant
USA, represented by Mr A. Deutsch, lawyer.                                       Opposition Division at OHIM to register the trade mark
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      in question; and
—     Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade-              —     order OHIM and the other parties to pay the costs.
      marks and Designs) in the case R 108/2002-2 of
      13 March 2003.
—     Order the defendant to register the mark No 001586510
      ‘APPLIED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION’
—     Order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the
      defendant                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Applicant for Community          GESINAR S.L. (Assignee: the ap-
Applicant for Community          Applied    Molecular     Evolution,       trade mark:                      plicant)
trade mark:                      Inc
Community       trade    mark    Word mark ‘APPLIED MOLECU-
sought:                          LAR EVOLUTION’ for certain
                                 services in Class 42 (application         Community       trade    mark    Figurative mark ‘Gesinar’ — Ap-
                                 No 001586510)                             sought:                          plication no 1 202 027 for
                                                                                                            goods in Classes 35, 36 and
Examiner's decision:             Application refused                                                        41 (business management assis-
                                                                                                            tance, administration, brokerage,
Decision of the Board of         Appeal dismissed                                                           leasing, evaluation, appraisal
Appeal:                                                                                                     and development of all kinds
                                                                                                            of real estate; issue of tokens
Pleas in law:                    Misapplication of Article 7(1)                                             of value, educational and enter-
                                 (b) and (c), of Regulation 40/                                             tainment services)
                                 94 (1).
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or sign       GESTIONES         ADMINISTRATI-
                                                                           cited in the opposition pro-     VAS Y SERVICIOS INMOBI-
                                                                           ceedings:                        LIARIOS MAR S.L.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.8.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 184/45
Mark or sign cited in oppo-      Figurative mark ‘GESINMAR’                Pleas in law and main arguments
sition:                          (mark          with         priority
                                                                           Applicant for Community          The Applicant
                                 no 1975912, for goods in
                                                                           trade mark:
                                 Class 36)
                                                                           Community       trade   mark     The trade name ‘ENZO FUSCO’
Decision of the Opposition       Upholding of the opposition for           sought:                          — Application for registration
Division:                        all services in Class 36                                                   No 726735, requested for pro-
                                                                                                            ducts in Classes 3, 9, 18, 24
                                                                                                            and 25 (products which are tra-
                                                                                                            ditionally the subject of trade
                                                                                                            mark registration by so-called
Decision of the Board of         Dismissal of the appeal                                                    creators of taste and fashion)
Appeal:
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or sign       Antonio Fusco International
                                                                           cited in the opposition pro-     S.A., Luxembourg
Pleas in law:                    Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)         ceedings:
                                 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                 (likelihood of confusion)
                                                                           Mark or sign cited in op-        Community mark ‘ANTONIO
                                                                           position:                        FUSCO’               (Registration
                                                                                                            No 654059) for products sub-
                                                                                                            stantially identical to those
                                                                                                            claimed by the Applicant
Action brought on 27 May 2003 by Vincenzo Fusco
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                          Decision of the Opposition       Opposition upheld and applica-
                                                                           Division:                        tion for registration dismissed
                         (Case T-185/03)
                         (2003/C 184/99)                                   Decision of the Board of         Dismissal of the appeal.
                                                                           Appeal:
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           Pleas in law:                    Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                              of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                                  (Risk of confusion).
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
27 May 2003 by Vincenzo Fusco, represented by B. Saguatti,
lawyers.
The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
was Antonio Fusco International S.A.                                       Action brought on 27 May 2003 by Joëlle Hivonnet
                                                                                       against Council of the European Union
The applicant claims:
                                                                                                    (Case T-188/03)
—     as a principal claim, that the Court should annul the                                        (2003/C 184/100)
      contested decisions of the Board of Appeal holding that
      the marks Antonio Fusco and Enzo Fusco were liable to                                   (Language of the case: French)
      be confused with each other;
—     in the alternative, should the Court hold that the marks             An action against the Council of the European Union was
      Antonio Fusco and Enzo Fusco are liable to confusion,                brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      that the Court should specify the precise territorial scope          Communities on 27 May 2003 by Joëlle Hivonnet, domiciled
      of the decision;                                                     in New York (United States), represented by Georges Vander-
—     as a principal claim, a declaration that, although the               sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
      opposition is based on an earlier Community trade                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
      mark, the transformation procedure is not precluded save
      by reference to the territory in respect of which the                —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 23 July
      existence of a risk of confusion may be recognised;                        2002 rejecting the applicant's request for the grant of an
                                                                                 education allowance for her daughter Eponine for the
—     that the opponent should be ordered to pay the costs, or,                  school years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and only
      in the alternative, given the delicacy and complexity of                   granting an education allowance for the school year
      the questions under consideration, that a composition of                   2001-2002 on an exceptional basis on the ground of
      costs should be established.                                               educational continuity;