CELEX: C2003/171/65
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-169/03: Action brought on 12 May 2003 by Sergio Rossi S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

C 171/38               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           19.7.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      order the Commission to make good the damage suffered               —     annul the decision of the Commission of 6 May 2002
       by it as a result of incomplete compliance with the                       definitively recruiting the applicant in Grade A 7 at step 3;
       judgment of the Court of 28 February 2002;
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The applicant took up his duties as a probationary official on
                                                                           1 August 2001 and was provisionally recruited at step 1 in
                                                                           grade A 7. The applicant made a request for recruitment at a
                                                                           higher grade. That request was refused.
The applicant has brought this action seeking a declaration
that the Commission is liable for failing to comply entirely
with the judgment of the Court ( 1) reducing the amount of the             In support of his application the applicant submits that there
fine imposed on the applicant by the Commission in decision                was a breach of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations in so far
94/601/CE (Plasterboard), relating to a proceeding pursuant to             as the Commission did not take account of the specific
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833-Plasterboard) ( 2).               requirements of the service. The applicant also submits that
                                                                           there was a manifest error of assessment.
In the applicant’s view, the Commission should still pay the
interests due on the difference between the sum paid and the
amount of the fine finally fixed by the Court of First Instance
together with the costs, agreed by common accord of the
parties at EUR 50 000. The defendant incurs non-contractual
liability for the damage arising therefrom.                                Action brought on 12 May 2003 by Sergio Rossi S.p.A.
                                                                           against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                    Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
( 1) Case T-308/94 Cascades SA v Commission [2002] ECR II-0000.
( 2) OJ 1991 L 243, p. 1.
                                                                                                     (Case T-169/03)
                                                                                                     (2003/C 171/65)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Pascal Millot against                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
        the Commission of the European Communities                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                           12 May 2003 by Sergio Rossi S.p.A., represented by Alessandro
                                                                           Ruo, lawyer.
                          (Case T-162/03)
                                                                           Sissi Rossi s.r.l. was also a party to the proceedings before the
                          (2003/C 171/64)                                  Board of Appeal.
                    (Language of the case: French)                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare that there is a likelihood of confusion between
                                                                                 the trade marks in question with regard to all the goods
                                                                                 referred to and annul the contested decision at issue; in
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        the alternative, declare that the trade marks are inconsist-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     ent with each other so far as concerns ‘ladies’ bags’ and
Communities on 30 April 2003 by Pascal Millot, residing in                       ‘ladies’ shoes’ and declare that there is an affinity between
Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen,                       such goods;
Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.                                                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 171/39
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Applicant for Com-           Sissi Rossi S.r.l.                           —     annul the refusal of the Defendant comprising the failure
munity trade mark:                                                              to give access to certain documentation requested in the
                                                                                Applicant’s confirmatory application of 17 January 2003.
Community trade mark         The trade mark ‘SISSI ROSSI’ -
sought:                      Application No 837.906 for
                             goods in Classes 14, 18, 25 and              —     order the Defendant to pay all the Applicant’s costs
                             26                                                 pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the
                                                                                Court of First Instance.
Proprietor of mark or        The applicant
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:
Mark or sign cited in        Italian trade mark No 553.016
opposition:                  and international trade mark
                             No 577.643 ‘MISS ROSSI’, for                 Pleas in law and main arguments
                             goods in Class 25 (ladies’ shoes)
Decision of the Oppo-        Opposition upheld and appli-
sition Division:             cation for registration refused              The applicant in the present case challenges the refusal of the
                                                                          defendant to grant it access to certain documents relating to
Decision of the Board of     Appeal upheld and opposition                 the classification of expanded tobacco for Customs and Excise
Appeal:                      decision dismissed                           duty purposes. Regarding this topic, it points out that it has a
                                                                          vital interest in knowing why a given product — expanded
                                                                          tobacco — is treated as smoking tobacco within the meaning
Pleas in law:                Likelihood of confusion by associ-           of Article 5(1) of Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November
                             ation and similarity between the             1995, on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the
                             trade mark applied for and the
                                                                          consumption of manufactured tobacco (1), and thus as an
                             trade mark cited in opposition               excisable product. The applicant considers the product an
                             (Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                          intermediary product, unsmokable without further processing,
                             No 40/94)                                    and therefore not excisable. It is stressed that there has been
                                                                          no published decision determining the issue and giving the
                                                                          reasons for the classification chosen.
                                                                          As regards two of the sets of requested documents (a complete
                                                                          set of documents of the Customs Cooperation Council on the
                                                                          Classification of expanded tobacco for customs classification
Action brought on 14 May 2003 by British American                         purposes and all the attendance lists of all meetings of the
Tobacco (Investments) Limited against the Commission                      Committee on Excise Duties, or any other relevant Committee,
                of the European Communities                               at which the definition of ‘smoking tobacco’ was debated), the
                                                                          applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 8(1)
                                                                          and (2) of Regulation(EC) 1049/2001 (2), by not responding
                        (Case T-170/03)                                   within the regulatory time-limits thereof.
                        (2003/C 171/66)
                                                                          In relation to the full minutes of all meetings of Excise duties,
                  (Language of the case: English)                         or any other relevant committee, at which the definition of
                                                                          ‘smoking tobacco’ was debated, including the full minutes of
                                                                          discussions on other agenda points, the applicant claims that
                                                                          the contested refusal:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —     Misapplied the principle of proportionality. In particular,
European Communities on 14 May 2003 by British American                         the Commission made no attemp to confer informally
Tobacco (Investments) Limited, London, United Kingdom,                          with the applicant with a view to finding a fair solution,
represented by Mr S. Crosby, lawyer.                                            pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001