CELEX: C2003/184/95
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-179/03: Action brought on 19 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

2.8.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 184/43
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Decision contested before        Refusal by the examiner of re-
                                                                          the Board of Appeal:             gistration
Community       trade    mark    Word mark ‘DigiFilm’, applica-
sought:                          tion no 2 467 348
                                                                          Decision of the Board of         Dismissal of the applicant's ap-
                                                                          Appeal:                          peal
Goods or services:               Goods and services in Classes 9
                                 (storage media etc.) and 42
                                 (creating photographs etc.)
                                                                          Pleas in law:                    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                                                                                           and (c) and Article 7(2) of Reg-
                                                                                                           ulation No 40/94 (1)
Decision contested before        Refusal by the examiner of re-
the Board of Appeal:             gistration
                                                                          (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         Dismissal of the applicant's ap-
Appeal:                          peal
Pleas in law:                    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)          Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Gianmarco Addi-
                                 and (c) and Article 7(2) of Reg-             mando and Others against the European Parliament
                                 ulation No 40/94 (1)
                                                                                                   (Case T-182/03)
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                                                   (2003/C 184/96)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 19 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG &                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
Co. OHG against the Office for Harmonisation in the                       the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                       20 May 2003 by Gianmarco Addimando, residing in Luxem-
                                                                          bourg, and 32 other officials, represented by G. Bounéou,
                         (Case T-179/03)                                  lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2003/C 184/95)
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          —    annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
                                                                               changing, with effect from a year not further specified
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                 (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                        during which the applicants were officials of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                         European Parliament), the procedure for calculating the
19 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG, Oldenburg                              annual expense of travelling to Greece in respect of the
(Germany), represented by Chr. Spintig, lawyer.                                journey via Brindisi, as taken into consideration for the
                                                                               destination of Athens;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the                   or, in the alternative,
      defendant of 12 March 2003 in Case R 638/2002-3;
                                                                          —    annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                    to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
                                                                               (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                during which the applicants were officials of the
                                                                               European Parliament), the cost of the sea passage from
Community       trade    mark    Word mark ‘DigiFilmMaker’, ap-                Brindisi to various Greek frontier points (Corfu, Igoume-
sought:                          plication no 2 467 017                        nitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;
                                                                          —    annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the
                                                                               decisions annulment of which is sought;
Goods or services:               Goods and services in Classes 9          —    reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid
                                 (storage media etc.) and 42                   following implementation of the decisions annulment of
                                 (creating photographs etc.)                   which is sought, together with legal interest;