CELEX: C2003/264/49
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-259/03: Action brought on 21 July 2003 by "Z" against the Commission of the European Communities

1.11.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 264/27
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 27 June 2003 by Guardant, Inc. against                  Grounds of claim:             —      The mark applied for is not
   the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                                         devoid of any distinctive
                                                                                                               character within the mean-
                                                                                                               ing of Article 7(1)(b) of
                        (Case T-243/03)                                                                        Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                                               94 (1).
                        (2003/C 264/48)                                                                 —      The mark applied for is not
                                                                                                               the normal means of
                                                                                                               designating services in the
                                                                                                               field of transportation, stor-
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                                               age and travel.
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-
                                                                              munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 June 2003 by Guardant, Inc.,
Atlanta (USA), represented by G. Farrington, Solicitor.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Defendant’s Second Board of               Action brought on 21 July 2003 by ‘Z’ against the
      Appeal of 28 April 2003;                                                    Commission of the European Communities
—     order the Defendant to remit the application to its
      Examination Division for re-examination of Community                                        (Case T-259/03)
      Trade Mark number 1713213;
                                                                                                  (2003/C 264/49)
—     order the Defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                             (Language of the case: Greek)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The trade mark con-          The word mark ‘PENSAMOS MÁS                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
cerned:                      EN USTED’ — application                      European Communities on 21 July 2003 by ‘Z’, resident in
                             No 1713213                                   Athens, Greece, represented by Vasilios Christianos, lawyer,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Goods or service con-        Services in Class 39 (transpor-
cerned:                      tation, storage and travel services;
                             transportation of passengers and             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             cargo, frequent flyer bonus pro-
                             grams)                                       —    order the defendant to pay to her by way of damages,
                                                                               with interest from the time at which the damage or
Decision        contested    Refusal of registration by the                    harm arose, the sum of EUR 900 000, comprising
before the Board of          examiner                                          EUR 700 000 for non-material damage which she has
Appeal:                                                                        suffered and EUR 200 000 for harm suffered to her
                                                                               health;
Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:                                                                   —    order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 264/28                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            1.11.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  and its final report and thus denied her any possibility of
                                                                                 exercising her rights of defence effectively.
                                                                           (1) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and
An investigation in relation to the applicant was ordered and                  of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations
carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). After                    conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L 136,
the investigation had been completed, certain items appeared                   31.5.1999, p. 1).
in the European press referring to the applicant and the                   (2) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
investigation of her, such that the applicant considers them                   of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard
disparaging and offensive. In addition, OLAF issued a press                    to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of
release concerning the investigation and also included a                       such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31).
                                                                           (3) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of
reference to it in its annual activity report. Although she was
                                                                               the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals
not referred to by name in the documents made public by                        with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community
OLAF, the applicant considers that the information which was                   institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data
given made it particularly easy to identify her, so that it was                (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).
clear who was in question. Also, after the investigation had
been completed, the applicant requested OLAF to disclose to
her the file which it had drawn up on her, its final report and
any other information concerning what its findings were on
the accusations against her. However, OLAF refused to disclose
anything at all to her.
                                                                           Action brought on 18 July 2003 by Euro Style ’94 S.r.l.
The applicant seeks, by her action, compensation for the non-              against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
material damage and harm to her health which she claims to                           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
have suffered for the abovementioned reasons. She pleads in
support of her action:
                                                                                                     (Case T-261/03)
—     Infringement by OLAF of the second subparagraph
      of Article 12(3) of Regulation No 1073/1999 (1), in                                           (2003/C 264/50)
      conjunction with Directive 95/46 (2) and Regulation
      No 45/2001 (3). The applicant submits that it follows, on
                                                                           (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
      reading the foregoing provisions in conjunction with
                                                                           of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
      each other, that OLAF is obliged, when publishing reports
                                                                                                    submitted: English)
      of its activities, to provide information in such a way that
      the identity of the person to whom the investigation
      relates is not revealed, directly or indirectly.
                                                                           An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     Infringement by OLAF of Article 8(2) of Regulation                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      No 1073/1999 in that it accepted or acquiesced in, and               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      ultimately allowed, the leaking of information to the                18 July 2003 by Euro Style ’94 S.r.l., Barletta, (Italy), represent-
      press regarding the investigation in relation to the                 ed by G. Pica, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
      applicant.                                                           bourg. RCN-Companhia de Importaçao e Esportaçao de Texte-
                                                                           is, LDA. was also a party to the proceedings before the Board
                                                                           of Appeal.
—     Infringement of Article 8(2) and (3) of Regulation
      No 1073/1999 which, in the applicant’s submission,
      prohibits OLAF from publishing press releases relating to            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      investigations which it carries out.
                                                                           —     cancel or amed the decision of the Second Board of
                                                                                 Appeal of OHIM no. R0067/2001-2;
—     Infringement by OLAF of Articles 4(1) and (2) and 6 of
      Regulation No 1073/1999, of Article 4 of Decision 99-
                                                                           —     consequently to order the registration of the trademark
      50 of the Court of Auditors of 16 December 1999, and
      of the more general obligation to observe the right to                     ‘GLOVE’ also for class 25 as requested by the firm Euro
                                                                                 Style ’94 S.r.l.;
      good administration in accordance with Article 41 of the
      Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
      since it refused to disclose to the applicant the file on her        —     order to bear the costs according to regulation.