CELEX: C2004/059/55
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-5/04: Action brought on 2 January 2004 by Carlo Scano against the Commission of the European Communities

6.3.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/35
Action brought on 2 January 2004 by Carlo Scano against                   Action brought on 7 January 2004 by Shaker s.a.s. di
       the Commission of the European Communities                         Lucia Laudato & C. against the Office for Harmonisation
                                                                               in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                           (Case T-5/04)
                                                                                                   (Case T-7/04)
                         (2004/C 59/55)
                                                                                                  (2004/C 59/56)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 January 2004 by Carlo Scano,                    An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Marc-Albert                Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Lucas, lawyer.                                                            European Communities on 7 January 2004 by Shaker s.a.s. di
                                                                          Lucia Laudato & C., represented by F. Sciaudone, lawyer. The
                                                                          other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Liminana y Botella S.L.
—     annul the decision of the selection board in Competition
      COM/PA/02 determining the applicant’s results in the
      pre-selection tests;                                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the list of successful candidates in Subject Area             —     annul the contested decision and/or vary it by rejecting
      No 3 of the competition and any decision adopted on                       the opposition by Liminana y Botella S.L., and by granting
      that basis;                                                               the application for registration of the Community trade
                                                                                mark submitted by the applicant;
—     order the Commission to pay to him compensation for
      non-material damage to him in a sum to be fixed by the              —     order OHIM to pay the costs of these proceedings.
      Court;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Party seeking the regis-      The applicant
                                                                          tration of the Com-
                                                                          munity trade mark:
The applicant, who lodged his candidature for Competition
COM/PA/02 for promotion from category B to category A,
                                                                          Relevant      Community       Figurative mark ‘Limoncello della
choosing the subject area ‘Human Resources Management/
                                                                          mark:                         Costiera Amalfitana-Shaker’ —
Administrative Organisation and Coordination’, seeks firstly
                                                                                                        Registration application No
the annulment of the selection board’s decision determining
                                                                                                        1267434 for products in Class-
his results in the pre-selection test and on that basis refusing
                                                                                                        es 29, 32 and 33 (jellies, preserves,
to admit him to the oral test.
                                                                                                        jams and liqueurs), subsequently
                                                                                                        limited to Classes 29 and 33.
In support of his claims the applicant pleads a breach of the
principles of good administration, of the duty to have regard             Owner of the mark or          Liminana y Botella S.L.
for the interests of officials, and of the principles of equal            distinctive sign asserted
treatment of candidates throughout the competition and                    in the opposition pro-
of objectivity when choosing between them. He claims,                     ceedings:
furthermore, that there was a manifest error of assessment in
that the sixth multiple choice question in the Italian version of         Mark or distinctive sign      Spanish word mark ‘limonchelo’,
the verbal and numerical test contained differences, caused by            asserted in the oppo-         for products in Class 33.
translation errors, from the English and French versions.                 sition proceedings:
Consequently the applicant, who had opted for the Italian
version, logically chose an answer considered incorrect and               Opposition      Division’s    Opposition upheld and appli-
did not choose that considered correct, unlike candidates who             decision:                     cation for registration rejected,
had opted for the other two language versions.                                                          limited to Class 33.
                                                                          Appeal Board’s decision:      Appeal dismissed.