CELEX: C2004/021/92
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-391/03: Action brought on 27 November 2003 by Yves Franchet and Daniel Byk against the Commission of the European Communities

C 21/46                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            24.1.2004
Action brought on 24 November 2003 by CM Capital                          Decision of the Oppo-          Opposition upheld and appli-
Markets Holding, S.A. against the Office for Harmonis-                    sition Division:               cation for registration refused in
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                   respect of the following services:
                             (OHIM)                                                                      business management, business
                                                                                                         administration, office functions
                                                                                                         (Class 35); insurance, financial
                         (Case T-390/03)                                                                 affairs, monetary affairs, banking
                                                                                                         business,       real-estate    affairs
                                                                                                         (Class 36); telecommunications
                          (2004/C 21/91)
                                                                                                         (Class 38); legal services and scien-
                                                                                                         tific and industrial research
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                        (Class 42).
                                                                          Decision of the Board of       Appeal brought by the applicant
                                                                          Appeal:                        for the mark upheld.
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                Pleas in law:                  Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                               No 40/94 incorrectly applied
24 November 2003 by CM Capital Markets Holding, S.A.,                                                    (likelihood of confusion).
established in Madrid, represented by Natalia Moya Fernández
of the Madrid Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the OHIM (First Board of Appeal)
      of 23 September 2003 in Case R-244/2003 and, as a
      consequence, uphold in its entirety the opposition
      brought in opposition proceedings B348914;                          Action brought on 27 November 2003 by Yves Franchet
                                                                          and Daniel Byk against the Commission of the European
—     accept the applicant’s arguments persuading the OHIM                                           Communities
      Opposition Division that the sign concerned should not
      be registered as a mark;
                                                                                                   (Case T-391/03)
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs and reject the OHIM’s
      arguments.
                                                                                                    (2004/C 21/92)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for Com-            Caja de Ahorros de Murcia.
munity trade mark:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Community trade mark          Figurative mark for which colour            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
sought:                       is claimed, consisting of the depic-        European Communities on 27 November 2003 by Yves
                              tion of a red square containing             Franchet and Daniel Byk, both residing in Luxembourg,
                              the letters ‘CM’ — Application              represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
                              No 1.413.061 for goods and ser-
                              vices in Classes 1 to 42.
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant.
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:                                                       —     annul the European Commission’s decision of 18 August
                                                                                2003, notified on 21 August 2003, refusing the appli-
                                                                                cants request for access to certain documents held by that
Mark or sign cited in         Spanish figurative mark ‘CAPITAL                  institution, and the Commission’s decision of 1 October
opposition:                   MARKETS CM’, registered under                     2003, refusing the confirmatory application lodged by
                              numbers 2.000.040, 2.000.041,                     the applicants on 8 September 2003;
                              2.000.042 and 2.000.043 for ser-
                              vices in Classes 35, 36, 38 and
                              42.                                         —     order the defendant to pay all of the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.1.2004             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 21/47
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Articles 2 and 4, a breach of the fundamental right of access
                                                                         to documents, a manifest error of assessment, erroneous and
The applicants in this case had submitted a request to the               contradictory reasoning, and a breach of the principle of
appointing authority for access to various documents held by             proportionality.
the Commission regarding investigations carried out as a
consequence of certain irregularities which had been found to            They consider in that regard that the defendant has wrongly
exist in relation to Eurostat. The rejection of this application         given a wide scope to the exceptions it relies on, which is
forms the basis of this case.                                            contrary to case-law. The case in fact involves no current
                                                                         court proceedings within the meaning of that case-law and,
The defendant relies on two exceptions in Article 4 of                   moreover, the European Anti-Fraud Office is an administrative
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament                  service, which compiles administrative files and reports.
and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
European Parliament, Council and Commission documents,                   Lastly, they claim that the Commission failed to determine the
and on the protection of court proceedings and of the purpose            requests for access in the light of the specific facts and
of inspections, investigations and audits.                               circumstances of the case by failing to consider the impact that
                                                                         the contents of the documents might have on the exceptions
In support of their position, the applicants claim that there has        relied on, and failed to give proper weight to the interests in
been a breach of Regulation No 1049/2001, in particular of               question.