CELEX: C2003/055/76
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-360/02: Action brought on 27 November 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg against the Commission of the European Communities

8.3.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 55/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Grounds of claim:               —     Infringement of Article 43(2)
                                                                                                              of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                                              94 ( 1) and Rule 22(2) of the
                                                                                                              implementing Regulation (2);
                                                                                                        —     Infringementof Article 8(1)(b)
Applicant for the Com-       The applicant                                                                    of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
munity trade mark:
                                                                        (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark         Word mark ‘VITAKRAFT’ for                       Community Trade Mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                        (2 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
concerned:                   goods in Classes 1, 3, 4, 12 and
                                                                             1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
                             19 (inter alia, Chemicals used in               Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
                             industry, science, photography, as
                             well as in agriculture, horticulture
                             and forestry, Bleaching prep-
                             arations and other substances for
                             laundry use, Industrial oils and
                             greases, Vehicles and Building
                             materials (non metallic)) — Appli-
                             cation No 303909
                                                                        Action brought on 27 November 2002 by Wolf-Dieter
Owner of the right to        KRAFFT, S.A.                               Graf Yorck von Wartenburg against the Commission of
the trade mark or sign                                                                     the European Communities
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings                                                                                       (Case T-360/02)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 55/76)
Trade mark or sign           The Spanish figurative marks
asserted by way of oppo-     ‘krafft’ for goods in Classes 1, 3,
sition in the opposition     4, 12 and 19 (inter alia, Chemicals
                                                                                            (Language of the case: German)
proceedings:                 used in industry, science, pho-
                             tography, as well as in agriculture,
                             horticulture and forestry, Bleach-
                             ing preparations and other sub-
                             stances for laundry use, Industrial
                             oils and greases, Vehicles and             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                             Building materials (non metallic))         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 27 November 2002 by Wolf-
                                                                        Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg, Wittibreut, Germany,
                                                                        represented by H.-H. Heyland, Rechtsanwalt, with an address
Decision of the Oppo-        Refusal of registration as regards         for service in Luxembourg.
sition Division:             Classes 1 and 3 and dismissal of
                             the opposition in so far as it
                             concerned Classes 4, 12 and 19             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —      Declare that, in amending the decision of 22 June 2000
Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of KRAFFT S.A.’s appeal                 and in its conduct of the complaint procedure R/332/
Appeal:                      with regard to the following                      2002 which followed, the Commission disregarded the
                             goods in the application, ‘candles,               prescribed legal and administrative provisions inasmuch
                             wicks’ in Class 4, ‘Vehicles, appar-              as it announced a change in the decision of 22 June 2000,
                             atus for locomotion by land, air                  carried out no hearing with representation of the parties
                             or water’ in Class 12 and ‘non-                   following an objection by the applicant and the direct
                             metallic transportable buildings;                 beneficiaries of the decision, ignored the formal require-
                             monuments, not of metal’ in                       ments for attachment under German and Belgian law,
                             Class 19 and dismissal of the                     even though these had been notified to it in writing, and
                             applicant’s appeal in respect of                  instead instructed bailiff M to draw up a partition scheme,
                             all goods in the application in                   which it received and, without giving reasons, then failed
                             Classes 1 and 3                                   to carry out;
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/28                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.3.2003
—     Order the Commission to carry out the partition scheme              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      of bailiff M of 19 August 2002, at least in relation to the
      amount of his pension, which under Belgian law has
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the defendant of 25 September
      protection against the seizure order of bailiff V of
                                                                                2002 in the appeal procedure R 338/2001-1;
      18 March 2002;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     Order the Commission to compensate the applicant
      for the loss (including that incurred through interest
      payments on bridging loans and non-material damage at
      the discretion of the court, not being less than EUR 100,
      together with costs incurred in enforcing his rights)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
      arising from the fact that, since May 2002, his pension
      has been entirely deposited with bailiff M, although the
      Commission is or must be aware that such conduct is
                                                                          Community trade mark         Word mark ‘SnTEM’ — Appli-
      unlawful, the amount of compensation for material
                                                                          applied for:                 cation No 1421734
      damage on account of the continuing illegality to be
      determined in the event of the declaration being granted.
                                                                          Goods or services:           Goods in Class 6 (inter alia, met-
                                                                                                       allic semi-finished products in the
                                                                                                       form of sheets, trips, wires, tubes,
                                                                                                       sections and rods)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Decision before       the    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                          Board of Appeal:             examiner
The applicant, a former temporary servant now in retirement,
draws a pension from the Communities. He claims that the                  Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of appeal
Commission has unlawfully made maintenance payments out                   Appeal:
of his pension to his former wives.
                                                                          Pleas in law:                —      Infringement                of
                                                                                                              Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
The applicant argues that, in making deductions from his                                                      Regulation (EC) No 40/94
pension, the Commission disregarded the prescribed legal and                                                  since the mark is not descrip-
administrative rules and infringed his right to a proper hearing.                                             tive.
Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke                        Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke
AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
               Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                         (Case T-367/02)                                                          (Case T-368/02)
                         (2003/C 55/77)                                                            (2003/C 55/78)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                           (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG, Ulm (Germany),                       9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG, Ulm (Germany),
represented by S. Gruber and F. Graf von Stosch, lawyers.                 represented by S. Gruber and F. Graf von Stosch, lawyers.