CELEX: C2003/184/94
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-178/03: Action brought on 21 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

C 184/42              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          2.8.2003
Action brought on 19 May 2003 by Trudell Medical Inter-                   Decision of the Board of        Appeal granted, decision of the
national against the Office for Harmonisation in the                      Appeal:                         Opposition Division annulled,
     Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                     registration refused.
                         (Case T-176/03)
                         (2003/C 184/93)                                  Pleas in law:                   — misapplication of Article 8
                                                                                                              (1)(b), of Regulation 40/
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of                                          94 (1). The applicant alleges
the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was                                                that there was no risk of
                         submitted: English)                                                                  confusion between the two
                                                                                                              marks concerned.
                                                                                                          — misapplication of Articles 74
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                (1) and 73 and of Regula-
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                                    tion 40/94. The applicant
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                                    alleges that the Board of
19 May 2003 by Trudell Medical International, London,                                                         Appeal examined alleged
Ontario (Canada), represented by Helmut Eichmann, Gerhard                                                     facts and arguments which
Barth, Ulrich Blumenroder, Christa Niklas-Falter, Maximilian                                                  were provided by neither
Kinkeldey, Karsten Brandt, Anja Franke, Ute Stephani, Bernd                                                   party and further based its
Allekotte, Elvira Pfrang, Karin Lochner, Babett Ertle, lawyers.                                               decision on reasons on
                                                                                                              which the parties concerned
                                                                                                              have had no opportunity to
Fisons Limited was also a party to the proceedings before the                                                 present their comments.
Board of Appeal.
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
—     Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade-
      marks and Designs) in the case R 643/2002-1 of March
      17, 2003;
—     order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the
      defendant
                                                                          Action brought on 21 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG &
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Co. OHG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                   Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Applicant for Community          Trudell Medical International
trade mark:
                                                                                                   (Case T-178/03)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 184/94)
Community       trade   mark     Word mark ‘AEROECLIPSE’ for
sought:                          certain goods in Class 10 (ap-
                                 plication No 001098649 )                                   (Language of the case: German)
Proprietor of mark or sign       Fisons Limited                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
cited in the opposition pro-                                              Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
ceedings:                                                                 Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          21 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG, Oldenburg
                                                                          (Germany), represented by Chr. Spintig, lawyer.
Mark or sign cited in op-        National mark ‘ECLIPSE’ in re-
position:                        spect of certain goods in                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                 Classes 5 and 10.
                                                                          —    annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
                                                                               defendant of 12 March 2003 in Case R 641/2002-3;
Decision of the Opposition       Opposition rejected.
Division:                                                                 —    order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.8.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 184/43
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Decision contested before        Refusal by the examiner of re-
                                                                          the Board of Appeal:             gistration
Community       trade    mark    Word mark ‘DigiFilm’, applica-
sought:                          tion no 2 467 348
                                                                          Decision of the Board of         Dismissal of the applicant's ap-
                                                                          Appeal:                          peal
Goods or services:               Goods and services in Classes 9
                                 (storage media etc.) and 42
                                 (creating photographs etc.)
                                                                          Pleas in law:                    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                                                                                           and (c) and Article 7(2) of Reg-
                                                                                                           ulation No 40/94 (1)
Decision contested before        Refusal by the examiner of re-
the Board of Appeal:             gistration
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                              Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Decision of the Board of         Dismissal of the applicant's ap-
Appeal:                          peal
Pleas in law:                    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)          Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Gianmarco Addi-
                                 and (c) and Article 7(2) of Reg-             mando and Others against the European Parliament
                                 ulation No 40/94 (1)
                                                                                                   (Case T-182/03)
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                                                   (2003/C 184/96)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 19 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG &                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
Co. OHG against the Office for Harmonisation in the                       the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                       20 May 2003 by Gianmarco Addimando, residing in Luxem-
                                                                          bourg, and 32 other officials, represented by G. Bounéou,
                         (Case T-179/03)                                  lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2003/C 184/95)
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          —    annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
                                                                               changing, with effect from a year not further specified
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                 (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                        during which the applicants were officials of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                         European Parliament), the procedure for calculating the
19 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG, Oldenburg                              annual expense of travelling to Greece in respect of the
(Germany), represented by Chr. Spintig, lawyer.                                journey via Brindisi, as taken into consideration for the
                                                                               destination of Athens;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the                   or, in the alternative,
      defendant of 12 March 2003 in Case R 638/2002-3;
                                                                          —    annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                    to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
                                                                               (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                during which the applicants were officials of the
                                                                               European Parliament), the cost of the sea passage from
Community       trade    mark    Word mark ‘DigiFilmMaker’, ap-                Brindisi to various Greek frontier points (Corfu, Igoume-
sought:                          plication no 2 467 017                        nitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;
                                                                          —    annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the
                                                                               decisions annulment of which is sought;
Goods or services:               Goods and services in Classes 9          —    reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid
                                 (storage media etc.) and 42                   following implementation of the decisions annulment of
                                 (creating photographs etc.)                   which is sought, together with legal interest;