CELEX: C2003/251/29
Language: en
Date: 2003-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-279/03: Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Galileo International Technology LLC and 13 Others against the Commission of the European Communities

18.10.2003            EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 251/15
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of                 Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Galileo
      the defendant of 30 April 2003 in appeal proceedings                International Technology LLC and 13 Others against the
      R 913/2001-4;                                                               Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                  (Case T-279/03)
—     instruct the defendant to make a determination on the
                                                                                                 (2003/C 251/29)
      merits in opposition proceedings B 288680, taking
      account of the legal view of the matter formed by the
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
      adjudicating court;
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.            of the European Communities on 5 August 2003 by Claude
                                                                          Delcorde, Jean-Noël Louis, Julie-Anne Delcorde and Spyros
                                                                          Maniatopoulos, lawyers, represented by Claude Delcorde,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Jean-Noël Louis, Julie-Anne Delcorde and Spyros
                                                                          Maniatopoulos, lawyers, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg.
Applicant for Community        ECI Telecom Ltd.
trade mark:
Community trade mark           Word mark ‘Hi-FOCuS’ in respect
sought:                        of goods and services in Classes 9
                               and 38 — application No                    The applicants claim that the Court should:
                               1 338 029
Proprietor of mark or          The applicant
sign cited in the opposi-
tion proceedings:                                                         —    Prohibit the Commission from making any use of the
Mark or sign cited in          The German mark ‘FOCUS’ (No                     word ‘Galileo’ in relation to the satellite radio navigation
opposition:                    394 07 564) in respect of goods                 system project and to cease causing directly or indirectly
                               and services in Classes 3, 5, 6, 7,             any third party whatsoever to use that word in the con-
                               8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24,               text of that project, and prohibit it from having any part
                               25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 38,                 whatsoever in the use of that word by any third party;
                               39, 41 and 42
Decision of the Opposi-        Rejection of the opposition
tion Division:
                                                                          —    order the Commission to pay the applicants, acting
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal    of    the   applicant's            jointly and severally, the amount of EUR 50 million as
Appeal:                        appeal                                          compensation for the material damage suffered;
Pleas in law:                  —    Submission in the opposi-
                                    tion proceedings of adequate
                                    evidence of the applicant's
                                    earlier right;
                                                                          In the alternative,
                               —    Infringement of the appli-
                                    cant's right to a hearing;
                               —    Infringement of the appli-
                                    cant's right of due process;
                                                                               —    in the event that the Commission continues to use
                               —    Infringement of Article                         the word ‘Galileo’, order it to pay the applicants an
                                    42 of Regulation (EC) No                        amount of EUR 240 million;
                                    40/94 (1) and Rule 20(3)
                                    of Regulation (EC) No
                                    2868/95 (2).
                                                                               —    order the Commission to pay the applicant, as from
                                                                                    the date of filing of the application, default interest
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the                     calculated by reference to the ECB rate plus 2 per
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                                      cent;
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995
    implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
                                                                               —    order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 251/16              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         18.10.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The pleas in law and arguments of the applicant are the same
                                                                        as in Case T-278/03 (Van Mannekus v Council).
The applicants, who are the proprietors of a number of trade
marks and company names containing the word ‘Galileo’ as an
                                                                        (1) OJ L 143, p. 5.
essential component, argue that the adoption of that word by
the Commission as the name for the Community project on
the European satellite radio navigation system infringes their
trade mark rights.
The action is based on Article 288 of the EC Treaty. The
applicants claim there is a likelihood of confusion based on
the alleged similarity between the signs in question and                Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Xanthippi Liakoura
between the goods and services sold by the applicants and                        against the Council of the European Union
the subject-matter of the Community project. They also claim
that the Commission acted unfairly and negligently with regard                                     (Case T-281/03)
to their rights, and plead infringement of the principle of
proportionality.                                                                                  (2003/C 251/31)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 5 August 2003 by Xanthippi Liakoura,
                                                                        residing in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin, lawyer.
Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Van Mannekus &
   Co. B.V. against the Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-280/03)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2003/C 251/30)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Council of 5 May 2003 in so far
                                                                              as it does not:
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 August 2003 by Van Mannekus & Co. B.V.,
Schiedam (Netherlands), represented by H. Bleier, lawyer.                    1.    delete, from the definitive report for the period from
                                                                                   1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001, the following words
                                                                                   included under general observations: ‘She is encour-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                        aged to resume tasks of coordination and distribution
                                                                                   of work in the Pool which she has performed
                                                                                   efficiently in the past’;
—     annul Council Regulation (EC) No 986/2003 of 5 June
      2003 amending the antidumping measures imposed by
      Regulation (EC) No 360/2000 on imports of dead-burned
      (scintered) magnesia originating in the People's Republic              2.    include a reference in that report to her ‘capacity for
      of China (1);                                                                mobility and versatility’;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay all the            —     order the Council to pay the costs.
      costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
By the contested regulation the Council altered the nature of
antidumping duties on imports of dead-burned magnesia ori-              The applicant takes issue with the appointing authority's
ginating in the People's Republic of China on the basis of a            refusal to delete one phrase and include another in her staff
partial interim review.                                                 report for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001.