CELEX: C2003/055/77
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-367/02: Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

C 55/28                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.3.2003
—     Order the Commission to carry out the partition scheme              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      of bailiff M of 19 August 2002, at least in relation to the
      amount of his pension, which under Belgian law has
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the defendant of 25 September
      protection against the seizure order of bailiff V of
                                                                                2002 in the appeal procedure R 338/2001-1;
      18 March 2002;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     Order the Commission to compensate the applicant
      for the loss (including that incurred through interest
      payments on bridging loans and non-material damage at
      the discretion of the court, not being less than EUR 100,
      together with costs incurred in enforcing his rights)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
      arising from the fact that, since May 2002, his pension
      has been entirely deposited with bailiff M, although the
      Commission is or must be aware that such conduct is
                                                                          Community trade mark         Word mark ‘SnTEM’ — Appli-
      unlawful, the amount of compensation for material
                                                                          applied for:                 cation No 1421734
      damage on account of the continuing illegality to be
      determined in the event of the declaration being granted.
                                                                          Goods or services:           Goods in Class 6 (inter alia, met-
                                                                                                       allic semi-finished products in the
                                                                                                       form of sheets, trips, wires, tubes,
                                                                                                       sections and rods)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Decision before       the    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                          Board of Appeal:             examiner
The applicant, a former temporary servant now in retirement,
draws a pension from the Communities. He claims that the                  Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of appeal
Commission has unlawfully made maintenance payments out                   Appeal:
of his pension to his former wives.
                                                                          Pleas in law:                —      Infringement                of
                                                                                                              Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
The applicant argues that, in making deductions from his                                                      Regulation (EC) No 40/94
pension, the Commission disregarded the prescribed legal and                                                  since the mark is not descrip-
administrative rules and infringed his right to a proper hearing.                                             tive.
Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke                        Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke
AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
               Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                         (Case T-367/02)                                                          (Case T-368/02)
                         (2003/C 55/77)                                                            (2003/C 55/78)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                           (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG, Ulm (Germany),                       9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG, Ulm (Germany),
represented by S. Gruber and F. Graf von Stosch, lawyers.                 represented by S. Gruber and F. Graf von Stosch, lawyers.