CELEX: C2003/019/72
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-342/02: Action brought on 8 November 2002 by Metro-Goldwin-Mayer Lion Corporation against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

25.1.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 19/37
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward are identical              Pleas in law and main arguments
to those in Case T-338/02.
                                                                           The pleas in law submitted are identical to those in Case
( 1) Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the              T-326/02.
     application of specific measures to combat terrorism, OJ L 344,
     of 28.12.2001, p. 93.
( 2) Council Common Position of 2 May 2002 updating Common
     Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures
     to combat terrorism, OJ L 116, of 3.5.2002, p. 75.
( 3) Council Common Position of 17 June 2002 updating Common
     Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures
     to combat terrorism and repealing Common Position 2002/340/
     CFSP, OJ L 160, of 18.6.2002, p. 32.
                                                                           Action brought on 8 November 2002 by Metro-Goldwin-
                                                                           Mayer Lion Corporation against the Office for Harmon-
                                                                                            ization in the Internal Market
                                                                                                   (Case T-342/02)
Action brought on 13 November 2002 by B.V. Bureau                                                   (2003/C 19/72)
Wijsmuller Scheepvaart-Transport en Zeesleepvaart
Maatschappij against the Commission of the European
                             Communities                                                      (Language of the case: English)
                           (Case T-340/02)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                            (2003/C 19/71)                                 Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 8 November 2002 by Metro-
                                                                           Goldwin-Mayer Lion Corporation, Santa Monica, California
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                         (United States of America), represented by Fernand de Visscher,
                                                                           Emmanuel Cornu, Eric De Gryse, Donatienne Moreau, avocats.
                                                                           A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
                                                                           was Moser Grupo Media, S.L., Santa Eulalia Del Rio (Baleares -
                                                                           Spain).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 November 2002 by B.V.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Bureau Wijsmuller Scheepvaart-Transport en Zeesleepvaart
Maatschappij, with its registered office in IJsmuiden (Nether-
lands), represented by M.J.J.M. Essers.                                    —     uphold the claim for annulment;
                                                                           —     annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      5 September 2002;
(1) Primarily, annul the Commission’s decision of 19 June                  —     confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of
       2002 (C(2002) 2158 final) concerning State aid provided                   19 February 2001 insofar as it upholds the Opposition
       by the Netherlands for the activities of Netherlands                      number B 47730 for all the contested goods and services
       tugboats operating within seaports and on inland water-                   and rejects application for registration no 409664 in its
       ways of the Community;                                                    entirety on the basis of applicant’s national registrations
                                                                                 of the trademark ‘MGM’;
(2) In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the contested
       Commission decision, in which the Commission requires               —     annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 19 Feb-
       the Netherlands Government inter alia to adopt all                        ruary 2001 insofar as it does not admit as ground for
       measures necessary to recover the aid from recipients,                    rejection applicant’s CTM no 141820 of the trademark
       with the exception of that aid which was granted prior to                 ‘MGM’ or, in subsidiary order, insofar as it does not admit
       12 September 1990;                                                        as ground for rejection the earlier national trade mark
                                                                                 registrations in Austria, Greece and the United Kingdom;
(3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
       ings.                                                               —     condemn the Office to the costs of the proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 19/38               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       25.1.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           —   Violation of Articles 42 and
                                                                                                              8 of Regulation 40/94.
                                                                                                              According to the applicant,
                                                                                                              an opposition can be based
                                                                                                              on an earlier community tra-
Applicant for the Com-       Moser Grupo Media, S.L.
                                                                                                              de mark application that is
munity trade mark:
                                                                                                              not yet registered as a trade
                                                                                                              mark.
The Community trade          The figurative trade mark ‘Moser
mark concerned:              Grupo Media, s.l.’ for goods and            (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                             services in classes 9, 16, 38, 39                Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
                             and 41 (application no 409664)
Proprietor of the right to   The applicant, Metro-Goldwin-
the trade mark or sign       Mayer Lion Corporation
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:                                                             Action brought on 15 November 2002 by Roland Schint-
                                                                           gen against Commission of the European Communities
Trade mark or sign           Several national rights and com-
                                                                                                   (Case T-343/02)
asserted by way of oppo-     munity trade mark application
sition in the opposition     no 141820 of the word mark
proceedings:                 ‘MGM’ for goods and services in                                        (2003/C 19/73)
                             classes 9, 38 and 41
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the community trade
sition Division:             mark application no 409664 of
                             Moser Grupo Media, disregarding
                             some of the earlier rights and              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                             community trade mark appli-                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                             cation no 141820 by the applicant           European Communities on 15 November 2002 by Roland
                             in the present case for the word            Schintgen, residing in Keispelt (Luxembourg), represented by
                             mark ‘MGM’                                  Lucas Vogel, lawyer.
Decision of the Board of     Rejection of the appeal by the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Appeal:                      opponent, applicant in the pre-
                             sent case, as inadmissible                  —     annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority
                                                                               on 16 July 2002 rejecting the complaint lodged by the
                                                                               applicant on 28 February 2002 requesting the annulment
                                                                               of the elections to the local staff committee, the appoint-
Grounds of claim:            —    Infringement of Article 58 of
                                                                               ment of the elected members to the staff committee and
                                  Regulation 40/94 (1)in so far
                                                                               the refusal by the Commission to annul the aforemen-
                                  as the applicant is adversely
                                                                               tioned elections and declare that the local staff committee
                                  affected by the decision of
                                                                               in Luxembourg, formed following the said elections, was
                                  the Opposition Division.
                                                                               not validly constituted;
                                  According to the applicant,
                                  it is still possible for Moser
                                  Grupo Media to convert its             —     annul, in so far as necessary, the abovementioned elec-
                                  community trade mark                         tions to the local staff committee in Luxembourg, together
                                  application         in     other             with the appointment of the elected members consequent
                                  countries with the advantage                 thereupon and annul the refusal by the Commission to
                                  of using the date of its Com-                annul the elections and declare unlawful the composition
                                  munity trade mark appli-                     of the local staff committee in Luxembourg which
                                  cation. This would not have                  resulted therefrom;
                                  been possible if the trade
                                  mark application had been              —     order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings and
                                  rejected on the grounds of                   the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the
                                  the applicant’s Community                    proceedings, in particular the travel and subsistence
                                  trade mark application.                      expenses and the remuneration of lawyers.