CELEX: C2002/169/73
Language: en
Date: 2002-07-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-141/02: Action brought on 3 May 2002 by Vetoquinol AG (formerly Chassot AG) against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

13.7.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 169/41
Action brought on 2 May 2002 by Sportwetten GmbH                        Decision of Board of          Dismissal of applicant’s appeal
Gera against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal               Appeal:
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                        Pleas in law:                 —     The registered trade mark
                                                                                                            designates services prohibit-
                         (Case T-140/02)
                                                                                                            ed in Germany
                                                                                                      —     The use of the trade mark
                         (2002/C 169/72)                                                                    for the services in respect
                                                                                                            of which it is registered is
                                                                                                            contrary to public policy and
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)                                           accepted      principles    of
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was                                           morality      pursuant      to
                        submitted: German)                                                                  Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation
                                                                                                            (EC) No 40/94 (1).
                                                                                                      —     The Office failed to take
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                              account of the requirement
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                                                     as to use and the significance
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 May                                                of Article 106(2) of the
2002 by Sportwetten GmbH Gera, residing in Gera (Germany),                                                  Regulation.
represented by A. Zumschlinge, lawyer.
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Intertops Sportwetten GmbH, Salzburg (Austria), was an                      Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
additional party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      Marks and Designs) of 21 February 2002 in appeal                  Action brought on 3 May 2002 by Vetoquinol AG
      no R 0338/2000-4 and the initial decision of the Office           (formerly Chassot AG) against the Office for Harmonis-
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 2 February                             ation in the Internal Market
      2000, ref.: C000422014/1;
                                                                                                 (Case T-141/02)
—     declare the Community trade mark with registration
      no 000422014, the word and figurative mark ‘Intertops’,
      void.                                                                                      (2002/C 169/73)
                                                                                          (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Registered trade mark in      Figurative mark ‘INTERTOPS’ for
                                                                        Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
respect of which a dec-       services in Class 42 — Com-
                                                                        European Communities on 3 May 2002 by Vetoquinol AG
laration of nullity is        munity trade mark 422014
                                                                        (formerly Chassot AG), represented by Mr Axel Kockläuner of
sought:
                                                                        Meissner, Bolte & Partner, Munich (Germany).
Proprietor of the Com-        Intertops Sportwetten GmbH
munity trade mark:
                                                                        A further party before the Board of Appeal was VETO-Centre.
Party applying for a dec-     The applicant
laration of nullity of the
Community trade mark:                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Trade mark or sign right      The German word mark                      —    annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
of applicant:                 ‘INTERTOPS SPORTWETTEN’ for                    defendant dated 15 February 2002 in case no R 218/
                              services in Class 42                           2001 (‘the contested Decision’);
Decision of Cancellation      Dismissal of application                  —    order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
Division:                                                                    defendant.
 ---pagebreak--- C 169/42              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.7.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the Commission’s decision dated 22 January 2001;
Applicant for the Com-       The applicant
munity trade mark:
                                                                         —     order the Commission to compensate the applicants for
                                                                               their loss of earnings and other benefits caused by the
The Community trade          Verbal mark ‘BIO-CANISAN’ —
                                                                               breaches of Community law;
mark concerned:              Application No 353 896, relating
                             to goods in classes 5 and 31
                             (veterinary preparations and food-          —     order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.
                             stuffs for animals)
Proprietor of the right to   VETO-Centre                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition                                                 The applicants all worked in the JET Project as employees or
proceedings:                                                             contractors to UK registered companies. According to the
                                                                         applicants, however, they should have been recruited by the
Trade mark or sign           French trade marks No 1582968               Commission as temporary agents since they were part of the
asserted by way of oppo-     ‘biocanina ’(word and device),              JET Project Team.
sition in the opposition     relating to goods in classes 5 and
proceedings:                 31, and No 1350892 ‘BIOCANI-
                             NA’), relating to goods in class 5          The applicants claim that the failure of the Commission to
                                                                         recruit the applicants as temporary agents was contrary the
Decision of the Oppo-        Refusal of the application                  JET statutes and constitutes an act ultra vires. According to the
sition Division:                                                         applicants, the JET statutes did not provide for the possibility
                                                                         of engaging staff who were working in the JET Project Team
Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of the appeal                     through external contractors.
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:            Infringement of Article 43(2),              Furthermore, the applicants claim that the Commission dis-
                             third sentence, and Article 8(1)(b)         criminated against them since this resulted in the applicants
                             of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.                being treated in a less favourable manner then those employed
                                                                         by the Commission who were fulfilling substantially similar
                                                                         roles in the JET Project.
Action brought on 7 May 2002 by Richard J. Eagle, John
G. Fanthome, Martin Gardener, Robert C. Walton, David                    Action brought on 15 May 2002 by Sunrider Corporation
Sands, Alexander Gaberscik, Beryl Marrs, Clifford Marren,                against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Robert Felton, Carol Brickley, TF Atkins, Michael George                               Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Grant and Edward Junger against the Commission of the
                   European Communities                                                           (Case T-156/02)
                        (Case T-144/02)                                                           (2002/C 169/75)
                        (2002/C 169/74)                                  (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                         of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                                 submitted: German)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
European Communities on 7 May 2002 by Richard J. Eagle,                  15 May 2002 by Sunrider Corporation, Torrance (USA),
John G. Fanthome, Martin Gardener, Robert C. Walton, David               represented by A. Kockläuner, lawyer.
Sands, Alexander Gaberscik, Beryl Marrs, Clifford Marren,
Robert Felton, Carol Brickley, TF Atkins, Michael George Grant
and Edward Junger, represented by Mr Daniel Beard of                     Frieslands Brands B.V., Leeuwarden (the Netherlands) was an
Monckton Chambers, London (United Kingdom).                              additional party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.