CELEX: C2003/101/72
Language: en
Date: 2003-04-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-43/03: Action brought on 10 February 2003 by La Maison de l'Europe Avignon-Méditerranée against Commission of the European Communities

26.4.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 101/39
Mark or sign cited in          The German word/figurative                  Pleas in law and main arguments
opposition:                    mark ‘AXON’ (No 1108589) for
                               goods and services in classes 10,           Applicant for Com-           Applicant
                               12, 35 and 36                               munity trade mark:
Decision of the Oppo-          Rejection of the opposition                 Community trade mark         Figurative mark ‘Julián Murúa
sition Division:                                                           sought:                      Entrena’        —       Application
                                                                                                        No 62.588 for products in
Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the decision of the                                         Class 33 (wines).
Appeal:                        Opposition Division and referral
                               of the case back to the Opposition          Proprietor of mark or        Bodegas Murúa S.A.
                               Division                                    sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                           sition proceedings:
Pleas in law:                  —     There is no similarity
                                     between the marks opposed,            Mark or sign cited in        Spanish trade mark ‘MURUA’
                                     within the meaning of                 opposition:                  and international registration
                                     Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation                                      No 482.779 having effect in Ger-
                                     (EC) No 40/94 (1).                                                 many, France, Austria, Switzer-
                                                                                                        land and Benelux for products in
                               —     There is no likelihood of                                          Class 33.
                                     confusion.
                                                                           Decision of the Oppo-        Opposition accepted.
                                                                           sition Division:
( 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     Appeal dismissed.
                                                                           Appeal:
                                                                           Pleas in law:                Incorrect        application      of
                                                                                                        Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                                        No 40/94 (likelihood of con-
                                                                                                        fusion).
Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Julián Murúa
Entrena against the Office for Harmonisation in the
     Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                          (Case T-40/03)                                   Action brought on 10 February 2003 by La Maison de
                                                                           l’Europe Avignon-Méditerranée against Commission of
                                                                                            the European Communities
                         (2003/C 101/71)
                                                                                                    (Case T-43/03)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 101/72)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                               (Language of the case: French)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
10 February 2003 by Julián Murúa Entrena, residing in El
Ciego, Álava (Spain), represented by Ignacio Temiño Ceniceros,             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
lawyer.                                                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 10 February 2003 by La Maison
                                                                           de l’Europe Avignon-Méditerranée, established in Avignon
                                                                           (France), represented by François Martineau, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the contested decision refusing the Community                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
       trade-mark application No 62.588 in Class 33;
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay EUR 100 000 to make good
—      order the parties to bear their own costs and half of the                 the damage suffered by La Maison de l’Europe Avignon-
       common costs.                                                             Méditerranée as a result of the disclosure of deceitful,
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/40               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        26.4.2003
      or at the very least confidential, information by the                     were officials of the Commission in Luxembourg, the
      representative of the European Commission in Marseille;                   cost of the sea passage from Brindisi to various Greek
                                                                                frontier posts (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of
—     order the defendant to pay all the recoverable costs,                     an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;
      which amounts to EUR 10 000.
                                                                          —     annul all the applicants’ reimbursement statements
                                                                                implementing the decisions annulment of which is
                                                                                sought;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     pay the applicants the entire amount which is outstanding
                                                                                as a result of the implementation of the decisions
The applicant claims that, during a meeting in Marseille on                     annulment of which is sought, together with interest at
23 January 2003, a representative of the defendant divulged                     the legal rate;
deceitful or at the very least confidential information. Such
disclosure resulted in damage for which it seeks compensation             —     order the Commission to pay the costs, expenses and fees
in the present application. In support of its arguments, the                    incurred.
applicant alleges non-contractual liability of the defendant in
the context of Article 288 EC and alleged breach of the
confidentiality obligation imposed on the representative of the
defendant by Article 287 EC.                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          In the present case, the applicants seek the annulment of the
                                                                          decision of the Commission changing the procedure for
                                                                          calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece.
Action brought on 7 February 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef                      In support of the (main and alternative) arguments for
and Others against Commission of the European Com-                        annulment, the applicants essentially rely on six pleas in law
                            munities                                      alleging, first, infringement of Article 71 of the Staff Regu-
                                                                          lations and of Articles 7 and 8 of Annex VII thereto;
                                                                          second, breach of the principle of non-discrimination; third,
                         (Case T-44/03)                                   infringement of the rights of the defence; fourth, breach of the
                                                                          principle that arbitrary procedures are prohibited and of the
                        (2003/C 101/73)                                   obligation to provide a statement of reasons; fifth, breach of
                                                                          the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and
                                                                          of the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’; and sixth, breach
                   (Language of the case: French)                         of the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
                                                                          officials.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 February 2003 by Giorgio
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), and 49
other officials, represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                        Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Riva Acciaio S.p.A.
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                                    (Case T-45/03)
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      changing, in respect of 1993, 1994 and 1995 or the                                           (2003/C 101/74)
      period within those years during which the applicants
      were officials of the Commission in Luxembourg, the
      procedure for calculating the annual expense of travelling                              (Language of the case: Italian)
      to Greece in respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken
      into consideration for certain destinations;
      alternatively,                                                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority          European Communities on 6 February 2003 by Riva Acciaio
      to reimburse, in respect of 1993, 1994 and 1995 or the              S.p.A., represented by Aurelio Pappalardo, Massimo Merola,
      period within those years during which the applicants               Maurizio Pappalardo and Federica Martin, lawyers.