CELEX: C2003/264/66
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-307/03: Action brought on 4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft mbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)

1.11.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 264/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark          The word mark ‘map&guide’ —               Applicant for Com-            The applicant in this casey
sought:                       application No 2089829                    munity trade mark:
Goods or services:            Goods and services in Classes 9,          Community trade mark          The word mark ‘NEXAVAR’ for
                              41 and 42 (computer software,             sought:                       goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical
                              conducting training events for                                          and veterinary preparations, diag-
                              computer software and computer                                          nostic preparations for medicinal
                              programming)                                                            purposes)      —       Application
                                                                                                      No 1534213
Decision         contested    Refusal by the examiner to register
before the Board of           the mark in respect of ‘computer          Proprietor of mark or         Sanofi-Synthelabo           (Société
Appeal:                       software’ and ‘computer program-          sign cited in the oppo-       Anonyme)
                              ming’                                     sition proceedings:
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal                   Mark or sign cited in         The national word mark ‘BESA-
Appeal:                                                                 opposition:                   VAR’ for goods in Class 5 (pharm-
                                                                                                      aceutical preparations)
Pleas in law:                 Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              Regulation (EC) No 40/94                  Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition
                                                                        sition Division:
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                        Appeal:                       Opposition Division and refusal
                                                                                                      of the application
                                                                        Pleas in law:                 There is no similarity between
                                                                                                      the marks which could lead to
Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Bayer AG                                                        confusion
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                         (Case T-304/03)
                         (2003/C 264/65)
                                                                        Action brought on 4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeut-
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)       sche Handelsgesellschaft mbH against the Office for
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was       Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and
                        submitted: German)                                                      Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                                 (Case T-307/03)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                       (2003/C 264/66)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
8 September 2003 by Bayer AG, Leverkusen (Germany),                     (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
represented by M. Wolpert, lawyer. Sanofi-Synthelabo (Société           of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
Anonyme), Paris, was also a party to the proceedings before                                     submitted: German)
the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
—     amend the decision of 4 June 2003 of the Fourth Board             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal         4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft
      Market (Case R 452/2002-4) and reject the opposition;             mbH, represented by U. Schuster, lawyer. Kaufring AG,
                                                                        Düsseldorf (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.          before the Board of Appeal.
 ---pagebreak--- C 264/38              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        1.11.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Valérie Wiame
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the                                    (Case T-308/03)
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      Marks and Designs) in Case R 52/2002-4 of 12 May
      2003 in so far as paragraph 2 of the decision dismisses                                    (2003/C 264/67)
      the appeal for the goods ‘jewellery’ and ‘bags for sports
      equipment, suitable for carrying objects’;                                            (Language of the case: French)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 8 September 2003 by Valérie
                                                                         Wiame, residing in Enghien (Belgium), represented by S. Orlan-
                                                                         di, A. Coolen, J. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address
                                                                         for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                                                                         —     Annul the Commission’s decision of 22 July 2002 laying
Applicant for Com-           Kaufring AG                                       down the detailed rules for the engagement of the
munity trade mark:                                                             applicant as a member of the temporary staff on the
                                                                               ground that the contract was unlawfully based on
                                                                               Article 2(b) of the Conditions of Employment of Other
Community trade mark         Figurative mark ‘UNICA’ inter alia                Servants of the European Communities for a fixed period
sought:                      for goods in Classes 14, 22, 23, 24               from 1 July 2002 to 31 March 2003 inclusive;
                             and 28 — Application No 41244
                                                                         —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Proprietor of mark or        The applicant
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Mark or sign cited in        German word mark ‘UNI CAT’                  The applicant worked for the Commission as a member of its
opposition:                  (No 2070 215 for goods in                   temporary staff until 31 March 2002. The applicant states
                             Class 25 (clothing, head cover-             that, in the light of specific assurances from her superiors as
                             ings)                                       to the renewal of her contract, she continued to perform the
                                                                         permanent duties assigned to her in the European public
                                                                         service from 1 April 2002 to 30 June 2002. On 22 July 2002,
Decision of the Oppo-        Partial rejection of the opposition         the Commission drew up a new contract as a member of the
sition Division:                                                         temporary staff for the period from 1 July 2002 to 31 March
                                                                         2003 inclusive. That contract was based on Article 2(b) of the
                                                                         Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European
Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the Decision in                Communities (‘the Conditions’).
Appeal:                      relation to ‘artificial textile fibres’
                             (Class 22) and ‘yarns and threads,
                             for textile use’ (Class 23). For the        As a result of the applicant’s complaint, the Commission paid
                             rest, dismissal of the applicant’s          her a sum equal to three months’ basic salary by way of
                             appeal                                      compensation, but refused to give her a contract for an
                                                                         indefinite period pursuant to Article 2(a) of the Conditions.
Pleas in law:                Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
                             Regulation (EC) No 40/94                    In support of her application the applicant alleges breach of
                                                                         Articles 2 and 8 of the Conditions, breach of the principle of
                                                                         legitimate expectations and breach of the duty to have regard
                                                                         for the welfare of officials.