CELEX: C2004/071/66
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-18/04: Action brought on 16 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio against the Commission of the European Communities

C 71/38               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
Action brought on 16 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio                       Action brought on 19 January 2004 by Metso Paper
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       Automation Oy against the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                            the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                         (Case T-18/04)                                                             (Case T-19/04)
                                                                                                    (2004/C 71/67)
                        (2004/C 71/66)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  19 January 2004 by Metso Paper Automation Oy, Tampere,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 Finland, represented by J. Tanhuanpää, lawyer.
European Communities on 16 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuc-
cio, represented by Alessandro Distanto, avvocato.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     annul the contested decision (1) partially as concerns
                                                                                 refusal to register the trade mark PAPERLAB on the
                                                                                 grounds of Article 7(1)(c) CTMR (item 1 of the order).
                                                                                 The subject appeal does not apply to item 2 of the order
—     Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting
                                                                                 in which the Board of Appeal remits the case to the
      his request;
                                                                                 examiner for further prosecution on the grounds of
                                                                                 Article 7(3) CTMR;
—     Declare that the applicant is entitled, pursuant to
      Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, to reimbursement of             —     order the Office to pay the costs of the applicant.
      100 % of all medical expenses incurred by him from
      4 January 2002 until complete recovery;
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The trade mark con-           The word mark ‘PAPERLAB’ —
                                                                           cerned:                       application No 2 575 009
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Goods or service con-         Goods in Class 9 (Computer
                                                                           cerned:                       equipment and measuring instal-
                                                                                                         lations for surveying and testing
                                                                                                         of paper)
The applicant takes issue with the defendant’s refusal to                  Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
reimburse him 100 % of the medical expenses incurred by him                before the Board of           examiner
in the course of treating his illness.                                     Appeal:
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      The contested decision was
                                                                           Appeal:                       upheld insofar as it rejected the
In support of those claims, the applicant alleges infringement                                           application on the grounds of
of Article 72 of the Staff Regulation and an absolute failure to                                         Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
state reasons.                                                                                           No 40/94. The case was remitted
                                                                                                         to the examiner for further pros-
                                                                                                         ecution on the grounds of
                                                                                                         Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                                         No 40/94.