CELEX: C2003/304/60
Language: en
Date: 2003-12-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-360/03: Action brought on 30 October 2003 by Frischpack GmbH & Co KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

C 304/32               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      13.12.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Pleas in law and main arguments
—     set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
      OHIM of 9 July 2003 in Case R 0576/2002-1;                           Applicant for Com-            Barilla Alimentare S.p.A.
                                                                           munity trade mark:
—     refuse to register as a Community mark No 488.940
      DAVID LLOYD in Class 25, and                                         Community trade mark          Figurative mark including the
                                                                           sought:                       words ‘SELEZIONE ORO’ and
                                                                                                         ‘BARILLA’ — Application No
—     order the other party or parties to pay the costs.                                                 289.405 for products in Class
                                                                                                         30 (pasta, flour and preparations
                                                                                                         made from cereals, bread, pastry
                                                                                                         and confectionery, yeast, baking-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                          powder, sauces).
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or         The applicant.
The pleas in law and main arguments are those already put                  sign cited in the oppo-
forward in Case T-341/03 El Corte Inglés v OHIM.                           sition proceedings:
                                                                           Mark or sign cited in         Word marks ‘ORO’ (Italian trade
The Community trade mark which is the subject of the dispute               opposition:                   mark No 307376 and inter-
is the mark ‘DAVID LLOYD’ (Application No 488.940, for                                                   national trade mark No 435773)
goods in Classes 3, 5, 25, 28, 36, 41 and 42). The applicant,                                            and ‘ORO SAIWA’ (Italian trade
the marks cited in the opposition proceedings, the proprietor                                            mark No 332.864) for products
and the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of                                            in Class 30.
Appeal are identical to those referred to in that case.
                                                                           Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition refused.
                                                                           sition Division:
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      Appeal dismissed.
                                                                           Appeal:
                                                                           Pleas in law:                 Incorrect application of Article
Action brought on 2 October 2003 by SAIWA S.p.A.                                                         8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                     94 (likelihood of confusion).
         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                         (Case T-344/03)
                         (2003/C 304/59)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           Action brought on 30 October 2003 by Frischpack GmbH
                                                                           & Co KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                         (Case T-360/03)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
2 October 2003 by SAIWA S.p.A., represented by Giuseppe
Sena, Paola Tarchini, Jean-Pierre Karsenty and Martine Karsen-                                     (2003/C 304/60)
ty-Ricard, lawyers. Barilla Alimentare S.p.A. was also a party
to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                                             (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of                  An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      OHIM of 18 July 2003 in Case R 480/2002-4; order that                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
      registration be refused in respect of Barilla’s Community            Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      trade mark application No 289405; order the defendant                30 October 2003 by Frischpack GmbH & Co KG, Mailling
      to pay all the costs.                                                (Germany), represented by P. Bornemann, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.12.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 304/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                on 31 October 2003 by Antonio Milano, represented and
                                                                           defended by Stefano Scarano.
—     alter the decision in Appeal R 236/2003-2, and annul it
      in part, namely in respect of the goods ‘cheese slices in
      large packs, not intended for the final consumer’;
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                           —     annul the act of the European Commission — European
                                                                                 Communities Personnel Selection Office — communi-
                                                                                 cated by memorandum of 24 March 2003 and notified
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  to the applicant on 31 March 2003, in which the selection
                                                                                 board decided that the applicant’s application was inad-
                                                                                 missible on the basis of the request for review made by
The trade mark applied         Three-dimensional mark in the
                                                                                 Mr Milano, annul the decision of 10 February 2003 of
for:                           form of a cheese box — Appli-
                                                                                 the Commission in which the selection board refused the
                               cation No 2 631 745.
                                                                                 applicant admission to the oral test in open competition
                                                                                 COM/A/4/02 ‘Administrators’, and annul the decision of
Goods or services con-         Goods in Class 29 (foodstuffs in                  17 July 2003 of the appointing authority in which the
cerned:                        sliced form, in particular slices of              complaint submitted by Mr Milano under Article 90(2)
                               cheese).                                          of the Staff Regulations and lodged at DG ADMIN on
                                                                                 24 April 2003 with number R/187/03 was rejected;
Decision         contested     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of            examiner.
Appeal:                                                                    —     full compensation in damages for economic and moral
                                                                                 loss
Decision of the Board of       Appeal dismissed.
Appeal:
                                                                           —     recovery of costs
Grounds of action:             —     Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                     (EC) No 40/94 has been
                                     infringed.
                               —     It is not to be denied that the
                                     mark has the distinctiveness
                                     necessary for registration.           Pleas and main arguments
                               —     A need to preserve avail-
                                     ability is not apparent.
                                                                           This action is brought against the decision of the selection
                                                                           board for open competition COM/A/4/02 ‘Administrators’,
                                                                           through qualifications and an oral test, with a view to
                                                                           constituting a reserve list for the recruitment of a head of
                                                                           representation in grade A3 in Rome, excluding the applicant
                                                                           from admission to the oral test in the above-mentioned
                                                                           competition.
Action brought on 31 October 2003 by Antonio Milano
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           In particular, the ground that the applicant does not have
                        (Case T-362/03)                                    thorough knowledge of Community institutions, programmes
                                                                           and policies is contested.
                        (2003/C 304/61)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                         In support of his arguments, the applicant claims that this
                                                                           ground is unfounded, unjustified, illogical and inconsistent.
An action against the European Commission was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities