CELEX: C2003/070/33
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2002 in Case T-110/01: Vedial SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier word mark SAINT-HUBERT 41 — Application for a figurative Community mark including the word "HUBERT" — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

22.3.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 70/21
States of America, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Extended Composition), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos,
President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A. W. H. Meij,
Judges, Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator, has given a
judgment on 15 January 2003, in which it:                                                             of 15 January 2003
1.     Dismisses the applications as inadmissible;
                                                                             in Case T-171/01: Institut de l’audiovisuel et des télécom-
2.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and, jointly and        munications en Europe (IDATE) v Commission of the
       severally, the costs incurred by the Commission;                                           European Communities (1)
3.     Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                             (Arbitration clause — Community Trans-European Telecom-
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001 and C 3 of 5.1.2002.                               munications Networks Programme — Contract relating
                                                                             to the organisation of seminars on using Euro-ISDN —
                                                                                                        Allowable costs)
                                                                                                         (2003/C 70/34)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 12 December 2002                                                       (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-110/01: Vedial SA v Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (1)
(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —
Earlier word mark SAINT-HUBERT 41 — Application for                          In Case T-171/01, Institut de l’audiovisuel et des télécommuni-
a figurative Community mark including the word ‘HUBERT’                      cations en Europe (IDATE), established in Montpellier (France),
— Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion                     represented by H. Calvet, lawyer, with an address for service in
        — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)                       Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: M. Wolfcarius and M. Shotter and J.-L. Fagnart):
                                                                             Application for a declaration by the Court of First Instance
                             (2003/C 70/33)                                  that ‘allowable costs’ payable by the Commission, for the
                                                                             purposes of the contract concluded between the Commission
                      (Language of the case: French)                         and the applicant in the context of the Trans-European
                                                                             Telecommunications Networks Programme, covers the whole
                                                                             of the costs invoiced by the applicant’s subcontractors under
                                                                             that contract and, in the alternative, for compensation for the
In Case T-110/01: Vedial SA, a company established in Ludres,                loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the
France, represented by T. van Innis and G. Glas, Lawyers, with
                                                                             breaches committed by the Commission in the performance
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for
                                                                             of that contract, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
Hamonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)                composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and
(OHIM) (Agent: E. Joly), the other party to the proceedings
                                                                             A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment
before the board of appeal of the Office for Hamonisation in                 on 15 January 2003, in which it:
the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) being France
Distribution, a company established in Emerainville, France —
appeal against the decision of the first board of appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks                 1.     Declares that ‘allowable costs’ payable by the Commission, for
and designs) of 9 March 2001 (Case R 127/2000-1) — the                              the purposes of the contract at issue, covers the whole of the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of                               costs invoiced to the applicant by its subcontractors under that
M. Vilaras, President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;                        contract.
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
                                                                             2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
1.     Dismissed the action;
2.     Ordered each party to bear its costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.01.