CELEX: C2003/055/93
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-4/03: Action brought on 8 January 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef against the Commission of the European Communities

C 55/38               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           8.3.2003
Action brought on 7 January 2003 by Everlast World’s                     Pleas in law:                  —    There are no absolute
Boxing Headquarters Corporation against the Office for                                                       grounds for refusal to regis-
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                                        ter the mark within the
                            Designs)                                                                         meaning of Article 7(1)(c)
                                                                                                             and (b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                                             No 40/94 ( 1).
                          (Case T-3/03)
                                                                                                        —    The trade mark has become
                         (2003/C 55/92)                                                                      distinctive in relation to the
                                                                                                             goods or services for which
                                                                                                             registration is requested in
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                             consequence of the use
                                                                                                             which has been made of it,
                                                                                                             in       accordance       with
                                                                                                             Article 7(3) of Regulation
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                               (EC) No 40/94.
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
7 January 2003 by Everlast World’s Boxing Headquarters
Corporation, New York, represented by A. Barth, Rechtsan-                (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
wältin.                                                                       Community trade mark (OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     set aside paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of
      Decision R 391/2001-1 of the First Board of Appeal of
      the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
      30 October 2002;
—     order the Office to pay the costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 8 January 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                    (Case T-4/03)
Trade mark for which          The word mark ‘Choice of Cham-
Community registration        pions’        —         Application
sought:                       No 1508498                                                           (2003/C 55/93)
Goods or services:            Goods of Classes 18, 25 and 28
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
Decision       challenged     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of           examiner
Appeal:
Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the examiner’s
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Appeal:                       decision in respect of ‘Leather and
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                              imitations of leather and goods            European Communities on 8 January 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef,
                              made from these materials’ so far
                                                                         residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by
                              as contained in Class 18; ‘animal          G. Bounéou, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                              skins and hides’, ‘trunks and trav-
                              elling bags; umbrellas, parasols
                              and walking sticks’ and ‘Play-
                              things; decorations for Christmas          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                              trees’. Dismissal of the complaint
                              in respect of ‘whips, harness and
                              saddlery’, ‘Clothing, footwear,            —     annul the decision of Appointing Authority of the
                              headgear’ and ‘Games; gymnastic                  Commission of the European Communities of 21 Decem-
                              and sporting articles’ so far as                 ber 2001 not to include the applicant’s name in the list
                              contained in Class 28, and dis-                  of most deserving officials and not to promote him to
                              missal of the application for dis-               grade B1 in the promotion exercise for 2001 (decision
                              tinctive force as a result of use in             adopted following reconsideration of the applicant’s file
                              respect of those goods.                          during the 2001 promotion exercise);
 ---pagebreak--- 8.3.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 55/39
—     annul, to the extent necessary, the decision notified by             Pleas in law and main arguments
      Note 41280 of the Vice-President of the Commission of
      the European Communities, Mr Neil Kinnock, dated
      25 September 2002, not to include the applicant’s name               The applicant companies in the present case object to the
      in the list of most deserving officials and not to promote           extension by the contested act of the exemption arrangement
      him to grade B1 in the promotion exercise for 2001                   from Article 90 of the Treaty in favour of the French overseas
      (decision in reply to the applicant’s Claim No R 220/                departments.
      02, brought for the annulment of the abovementioned
      decision of 21 December 2001);
                                                                           In support of their arguments, they submit that there is
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay such costs as the Court may assess.                              infringement of Article 299(2) of the Treaty in so far as the
                                                                           Council adopted the contested measure in breach of the
                                                                           conditions laid down therein. The preparatory acts leading up
                                                                           to the contested decision, particularly the report of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Commission to the Council dated 24 November 1999, and
                                                                           points 3 and 5 of the statement of the grounds for the decision
                                                                           proposal by the Commission to the Council of 23 August
In support of his action, the applicant alleges, first, an                 2002 (COM 2002 473 FINAL) show that the prerequisite
infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and of              conditions for validly authorising an extension of the special
the principle of non-discrimination. The applicant further                 tax arrangements in favour of the overseas departments have
alleges an infringement of the principle of respect for the rights         not yet been satisfied.
of the defence, an infringement of the principle prohibiting
arbitrary proceedings and of the obligation to state reasons, an
infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and of            As regards Decision 89/688 of 22 December 1989, the effects
the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ and, lastly, infringe-           of which were extended by the contested decision, the
ment of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.            applicants question its legality on the basis of Article 241 of
                                                                           the Treaty, on the grounds that the Council was not competent
                                                                           to authorise it in 1989. They submit that that decision
                                                                           constituted a derogation from Article 95 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           (now Article 90) and thus could no longer be taken by the
                                                                           Council after expiry of the two-year time period provided for
                                                                           in 1957, in the second subparagraph of Article 227(2) of the
Action brought on 9 January 2003 by Ayassami & Fils                        EC Treaty.
EURL and Others against the Council of the European
                              Union
                          (Case T-5/03)
                         (2003/C 55/94)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Action brought on 10 January 2003 by COLDIRETTI —
                                                                           Federazione Regionale Coltivatori Diretti della Sardegna e
                                                                           CIA — Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori della Sardegna
                                                                               against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 9 January 2003 by Ayassami & Fils EURL,                                              (Case T-9/03)
established in Saint-François (Guadeloupe), and 23 other
undertakings, represented by John Sylvanus Dagnon, avocat.                                         (2003/C 55/95)
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
—     Annul Council Decision 2002/973/EC of 10 December
      2002 amending Decision 89/688/EEC of 22 December
      1989 concerning the dock dues in the French overseas
      departments Commission Regulation (OJ 2002 L 337,                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      p. 83).                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 10 January 2003 by COLDIRETTI
—     Declare that Council Decision 89/688/EEC of 22 Decem-                — Federazione Regionale Coltivatori Diretti della Sardegna e
      ber 1989 concerning the dock dues in the French overseas             CIA — Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori della Sardegna,
      departments (OJ 1989 L 399, p. 46) is inapplicable.                  represented by Giovanni Dore and Fabio Ciulli, lawyers.