CELEX: C2004/021/83
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-378/03: Action brought on 18 November 2003 by Musée Grevin against the Commission of the European Communities

C 21/40               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         24.1.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision given by the Fourth Board of Appeal             —     join this action to Case T-314/03 for the purposes of the
      of the defendant on 16 July 2003 in Case R 339/2002-4;                   written procedure and the oral procedure;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the European Commission of
                                                                               30 September 2003 requiring Musée Grevin to reimburse
                                                                               the sums allegedly wrongly paid to it;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.
Applicant for Com-           ATI Technologies Inc.
munity trade mark:
Community trade mark         Word mark ‘ATI’ — Application
sought:                      No 362 863 lodged in respect of             Pleas in law and main arguments
                             goods and services in Class 9
                             (electronic components etc.).
Proprietor of mark or        Asociación de Técnicos            de        The applicant received grants from the Commission within the
sign cited in the oppo-      Informatica — ATI.                          framework of a project to create a joint venture with a Polish
sition proceedings:                                                      undertaking. By decision of 8 July 2003, the Commission
                                                                         sought repayment of the sums paid to the applicant.
Mark or sign cited in        Graphic mark ‘ati’ registered in
opposition:                  respect of services in Class 42.
                                                                         The applicant brought proceedings challenging that decision
Decision of the Oppo-        Refusal of the application for              (Case T-314/03, OJ 2003 C 275, p. 49). At the same time, the
sition Division:             registration.                               applicant submitted documents to the Commission fully
                                                                         substantiating the proper use of the Community funds, and
Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of the appeal.                    asked it to reconsider its decision. In the decision contested in
Appeal:                                                                  this case, the Commission confirmed its decision of 8 July
                                                                         2003.
Pleas in law:                Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                             of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
                             lihood of confusion).
                                                                         In support of its application, the applicant alleges, first, a
                                                                         breach of Regulation No 1 (1), in that the contested decision
                                                                         was written in English and not in French. It also alleges a
                                                                         failure to respect the limitation period of four years laid down
                                                                         in Article 3 of Council Regulation No 2988/95 (2). The
                                                                         applicant alleges moreover a breach of the principle of
                                                                         collegiate responsibility and that the person who signed the
                                                                         contested decision lacked competence.
Action brought on 18 November 2003 by Musée Grevin
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicant also alleges that the decision lacks any legal
                        (Case T-378/03)                                  basis, contains a manifest error of assessment, fails to satisfy
                                                                         the obligation to state reasons and, lastly, is in breach of the
                                                                         principle of proportionality.
                         (2004/C 21/83)
                  (Language of the case: French)                         (1) Council Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by
                                                                             the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition
                                                                             1952-1958, p. 59).
                                                                         (2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
                                                                             1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    interests (OJ 1995 L 312, pp. 1-4).
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 November 2003 by Musée
Grevin, having its registered office in Paris, represented by
Bernard Geneste and Olivia Davidson, lawyers.