CELEX: C2003/275/80
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-309/03: Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Manel Camós Grau against Commission of the European Communities

15.11.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 275/47
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant in this case                  Pleas in law and main arguments
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:
                                                                          Applicant for Com-            The applicant in this case
Mark or sign cited in         The German word mark ‘SOLEVI-               munity trade mark:
opposition:                   TA’ for goods in Class 32
                                                                          Community trade mark          The word/figurative mark ‘Opus-
Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition                 sought:                       Dent’ for goods and services in
sition Division:                                                                                        Classes 9, 10 and 42 (inter alia,
                                                                                                        lasers, not for medical purposes;
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal                                       medical, dental and aesthetic
Appeal:                                                                                                 lasers; medical and dental treat-
                                                                                                        ment)         —         Application
Pleas in law:                 The applicant has submitted                                               No 1331230
                              adequate evidence of genuine use
                              of the opposing mark;                       Proprietor of mark or         Dornier Medizintechnik GmbH
                                                                          sign cited in the oppo-
                              —     Infringement of the maxim             sition proceedings:
                                    of party disposition laid
                                    down in the second sentence
                                    of Article 74(1) of Regu-             Mark or sign cited in         The Community trade mark
                                    lation 40/94;                         opposition:                   ‘Opus’ for goods in Class 10 (inter
                                                                                                        alia, medical tables for examin-
                              —     Failure to respect the right to                                     ations and treatment, X-ray appar-
                                    be heard.                                                           atus and X-ray work stations)
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         The opposition was upheld in
                                                                          sition Division:              respect of the goods ‘medical, den-
                                                                                                        tal and aesthetic lasers’ and reject-
                                                                                                        ed in respect of the remaining
                                                                                                        goods and services
Action brought on 8 September 2003 by OpusDent                            Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the                          Appeal:
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                          Pleas in law:                 No likelihood of confusion
                         (Case T-305/03)
                         (2003/C 275/79)
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                        submitted: German)
                                                                          Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Manel Camós
                                                                           Grau against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                        (Case T-309/03)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
8 September 2003 by OpusDent GmbH, Freising (Germany),
represented by P. Munzinger, lawyer. Dornier Medizintechnik                                       (2003/C 275/80)
GmbH, Weßling (Germany), was also a party to the proceed-
ings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of 23 June 2003 of the Second Board              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      of Appeal of the defendant in Case R 579/2002-2;                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 8 September 2003 by Manel Grau,
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.            residing in Brussels, represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/48               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       15.11.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                the objectivity of OLAF investigations, in that the contested
                                                                           report was drawn up without the assistance of the sole
                                                                           investigator who remained authorised.
—     annul the decision of 17 May 2002 of OLAF or its
      Director removing one of the investigators from the
      Office’s investigation into the IRELA owing to a conflict
                                                                           (1) Communicated in OJ C 112, 10.5.2003, p. 44.
      of interests on his part, in that it left standing measures          (2) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and
      adopted by that investigator to which he contributed;                    of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations
                                                                               conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), published
                                                                               in OJ L 136 of 31.05.1999, pp. 1-7.
—     annul the decision of 29 November 2002 of OLAF or its
      Director rejecting by implication the applicant’s adminis-
      trative complaint of 29 July 2002 against that decision;
—     annul the report of 17 October 2002 closing the
      investigation in to IRELA or the decision of its Director
      adopting that report or its conclusions;
—     annul the decision of 28 May 2003 of the Director of                 Action brought on 12 September 2003 by Nürburgring
                                                                           GmbH against the European Parliament and the Council
      OLAF rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint
                                                                                                of the European Union
      of 4 February 2003 against that report;
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant compen-                                             (Case T-311/03)
      sation, evaluated provisionally and ex aequo et bono at
      EUR 10 000, for the non-pecuniary harm sustained;
                                                                                                    (2003/C 275/81)
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant a provisional
      sum of EUR 1 by way of compensation for the harm to                                     (Language of the case: German)
      his career;
—     order the Commission to reimburse the fees which he
      has incurred in his defence in the investigation and the             An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
      administrative complaints against the contested decision             the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
      and report;                                                          of the European Communities on 12 September 2003 by
                                                                           Nürburgring GmbH, represented by Dr H.-J. Rabe, and
                                                                           Dr M.A. Dauses.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation
                                                                                 of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                                 of the Member States relating to the advertising and
                                                                                 sponsorship of tobacco products, and Article 5(1) thereof
The applicant, an official with the defendant, has already                       in particular, void;
brought an action before the Court (T-96/03) (1) also seeking
annulment of the OLAF’s decision of 12 May 2002 and
claiming damages. By the present action, the applicant repeats             —     order the defendant to bear the costs.
the forms of order already submitted in his first action, but
also attacks the report closing the inquiry. In support of the
present action, he relies first of all on the pleas already raised
in Case T-96/03.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
He then relies on two further pleas. The first alleges breach of           The applicant organises Formula 1 car racing at the Nürburg-
the principles of the rights of the defence, legitimate expec-             ring. Tobacco companies make substantial contributions to
tations and proper administration, and also of Commission                  support such racing events. The applicant submits that,
Decision 396/96 on the terms and conditions for internal                   because of the prohibition in Article 5(1) of the directive, there
investigations. The second plea alleges breach of Articles 6 and           is a danger that Formula 1 racing will no longer be held at the
9 of Regulation No 1073/1999 (2), and also the principle of                Nürburgring.