CELEX: C2003/158/40
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-05 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2003 In Joined Cases T-324/01 and T-110/02: Axions SA and Christian Belce v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Three-dimensional marks — Brown cigar shape and gold ingot shape — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

C 158/22                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.7.2003
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Action brought on 22 April 2003 by Antoinette Pascucci
                                                                                                   against Europol
                                                                                                   (Case T-127/03)
                         of 30 April 2003
                                                                                                   (2003/C 158/41)
In Joined Cases T-324/01 and T-110/02: Axions SA and                                          (Language of the case: Dutch)
Christian Belce v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                          An action against Esuropol was brought before the Court of
                                                                          First Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 2003
                                                                          by Antoinette Pascucci, represented by P. de Casparis and
(Community trade mark — Three-dimensional marks —                         M.F. Baltussen.
Brown cigar shape and gold ingot shape — Absolute grounds
for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                    Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                          1.     Set aside Europol’s dismissal on 13 January 2003 of the
                                                                                 complaint lodged by the applicant against the decision of
                                                                                 30 September 2002 and at the same time annul the
                          (2003/C 158/40)                                        decision of 30 September 2002;
                                                                          2.     Order Europol to extend the applicant’s contract of
                                                                                 employment to 1 July 2005 under the same conditions
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                 as obtaining hitherto;
                                                                          3.     Order Europol to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In Joined Cases T-324/01 and T-110/02, Axion SA, established
in Geneva (Switzerland), Christian Belce, resident at Veyrier             The applicant has been working for the defendant since 1 July
(Switzerland), represented by C. Eckhartt, lawyer, v Office for           1999. Her contract of employment expires on 1 July 2003.
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     The applicant requested that her contract be extended for a
Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider): Actions brought                    further four years. The defendant, however, decided to extend
against two decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of the                 her contract for only one year. The applicant has challenged
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks              that decision.
and Designs) of 26 September 2001 (Case R 599/2001-3) and
16 January 2002 (Case R 538/2001-3), relating to the                      In support of her application, the applicant first of all argues
registration as Community trade marks of a three-dimensional              that there has been an infringement of the principle that
shape representing a brown cigar (Case T-324/01) and a three-             reasons must be given.
dimensional shape representing a gold ingot (Case T-110/02),
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed
                                                                          The applicant goes on to argue that the defendant has exceeded
of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges;
                                                                          the bounds of its discretion. The defendant had adopted
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                          premisses, policy rules and a plan of action with a view to
judgment on 30 April 2003, in which it:
                                                                          ensuring that contracts would be extended in an unambiguous
                                                                          and transparent manner. In the applicant’s view, the defendant
                                                                          exceeded the bounds of its discretion when applying those
1.     Dismisses the applications;                                        rules.
                                                                          The applicant submits further that there has been a breach of
2.     Orders the applicants to pay the costs.                            the duty of care and an infringement of the principle of
                                                                          equality.
                                                                          The applicant concludes by contending that the defendant has
( 1) OJ C 68, 16.3.2002 and C 131, 1.6.2002.
                                                                          misused its powers. She submits that the defendant allowed
                                                                          itself to be influenced by other, unlawful grounds when it took
                                                                          its decision.