CELEX: C2004/071/69
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-21/04: Action brought on 21 January 2004 by Fusion Electronics Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

20.3.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 71/39
Grounds of claim:               —    The mark ‘PAPERLAB’ is                 2)    order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                     registrable in Class 9 because
                                     it does not directly describe
                                     the goods in any manner;
                                —    The trade mark ‘PAPERLAB’              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                     can serve as a mark in trade
                                     to distinguish goods of the
                                     applicant from goods of
                                     other traders;                         The applicants in the present case, all officials and servants
                                                                            posted to the Food and Veterinary Office, Dublin, contest the
                                —    The Office for Harmonis-               pay slips and the back pay slips concerning them for the
                                     ation in the Internal Market           period since 1 July 2002.
                                     has accepted several similar
                                     trademarks.
                                                                            In support of their application, the applicants put forward a
                                                                            single plea in law challenging the validity of the weighting
(1) Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonis-       fixed for Ireland by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom)
    ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of               No 2265/2002 of 16 December 2002 (1) inasmuch as, contrary
    17 November 2003 (Case R 842/2002-1).
                                                                            to Article 64 of the Staff Regulations which lays down
                                                                            the principle of equal purchasing power between officials
                                                                            irrespective of their place of work does, that weighting does
                                                                            not offset the difference between the actual cost of living at
                                                                            their place of work and that in Brussels. Specifically, they state
                                                                            that setting the weighting at 124,8 does not meet such a
                                                                            requirement.
                                                                            (1) OJ 2002 L 347, p. 1.
Action brought on 20 January 2004 by María Pilar Aguar
Fernández and 126 others against Commission of the
                     European Communities
                           (Case T-20/04)
                           (2004/C 71/68)
                                                                            Action brought on 21 January 2004 by Fusion Electronics
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                          Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                                      (Case T-21/04)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 January 2004 by María Pilar                                                (2004/C 71/69)
Aguar Fernández and 126 others, all residing in Ireland,
represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël
Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service             (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to article 131(2)
in Luxembourg.                                                              of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the case was
                                                                                                     submitted: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1)    annul the decisions of the Commission establishing the                An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      pay slips and the back pay slips in respect of the applicants         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      since 1 July 2002 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC,                 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      Euratom) No 2265/2002 of 16 December 2002 adjusting                   21 January 2004 by Fusion Electronics Limited, Auckland,
      with effect from 1 July 2002 the remuneration and                     New Zealand, represented by Mr A. Roughton Barrister. Ford
      pensions of officials and other servants of the European              Motor Company was also a party to the proceedings before
      Communities and the weightings applied thereto;                       the Board of Appeal.
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/40                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       20.3.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Action brought on 22 January 2004 by González y Díez
                                                                           S.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                           ties
—     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated
      the 17 November 2003;
                                                                                                     (Case T-25/04)
—     direct that the applicant’s application for a declaration of
      invalidity fails;                                                                              (2004/C 71/70)
—     order the Office to pay the appellant’s costs here and                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
      below or order the Office to pay the appellant’s costs
      here and direct that the applicant pay the appellant’s costs
      below.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 22 January 2004 by González y
                                                                           Díez S.A., whose registered office is at Villabona-Llanera
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            (Asturias, Spain), represented by J. Díez-Hochleitner and
                                                                           A. Martínez Sánchez, lawyers.
Community trade mark           Word Mark ‘FUSION’ — Appli-
sought:                        cation No 1061050 for products              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                               within class 9 (Audio, video and
                               security equipment for vehicles).
                                                                           —     annul in their entirety Articles 1, 3 and 4 of the
                                                                                 Commission decision of 5 November 2003 on aid for
Proprietor of mark or          The Applicant.                                    González y Díez S.A. to cover exceptional expenses. (aid
sign whose cancellation                                                          for 2001 and misuse of aid for 1998 and 2000), and in
is sought:                                                                       so far as that decision amends Decision 2002/827/ECSC;
                                                                                 and
Applicant for cancel-          Ford Motor Company, in relation
lation:                        to Community trade mark regis-              —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                               tration No 747121 of the word
                               mark ‘FUSION’ for goods in class-
                               es 12 (Motor land vehicles and
                               parts and fittings therefore) and
                               37 (Motor vehicles maintenance              Pleas in law and main arguments
                               and repair services).
Decision of the Cancel-        Application upheld.                         The Decision challenged in the present proceedings abrogates
lation Division:                                                           Articles 1, 2 and 5 of Decision 2002/827/ECSC of 2 July 2002
                                                                           on the granting by Spain of aid to the undertaking González y
                                                                           Díez S.A. in 1998, 2000 and 2001. That decision has already
Decision of the Board of       Appeal dismissed.
                                                                           been the subject of a previous action, brought by the same
Appeal:
                                                                           company (1).
Pleas in law:                  —     The notion of similarity of
                                     customers as set out in the           The Decision challenged:
                                     contested decision is wrong.
                               —     The conclusion that the               —     states in Article 1 that certain aid for the coal industry
                                     goods set out in the respect-               granted to the applicant to cover exceptional restructur-
                                     ive registrations are at least              ing costs totalling EUR 3131726,47 constitutes an abuse
                                     similar is wrong.                           of Commission Decisions 98/637/ECSC (2) and 2001/
                                                                                 162/ECSC (3) of 3 June 1998 and 13 December 2000
                                                                                 respectively on the granting by Spain of aid to the
                                                                                 coal industry in 1998 and 2000 and are, therefore,
                                                                                 incompatible with the common market;