CELEX: C2002/289/58
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-286/02: Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Oriental Kitchen SARL against Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

23.11.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 289/31
Action brought on 20 September 2002 by Eva Vega                           Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Oriental
Rodríguez against Commission of the European Com-                         Kitchen SARL against Office for the Harmonisation of
                             munities                                        the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                                  (Case T-286/02)
                         (Case T-285/02)
                                                                                                  (2002/C 289/58)
                         (2002/C 289/57)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against 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-                 23 September 2002 by Oriental Kitchen SARL, whose regis-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                tered office is in Choisy-le-Roi (France), represented by Jean-
European Communities on 20 September 2002 by Eva Vega                     Jacques Sebag, lawyer. Mou Dybfros A/S, Esbjerg (Denmark)
Rodríguez, residing in Brussels, represented by Juan Ramón                was also an intervener in the proceedings before the Board of
Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.                                           Appeal.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the appeal decision of 28 June 2002 of the Office
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 25 June 2002;                     for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market;
                                                                          —     vary the decision of the Office for the Harmonisation of
—     order that she be paid compensation to make good the                      the Internal Market of 11 December 2000;
      damage suffered by her in the amount of EUR 72 292,36,
      subject to all manner of reservations, together with
      default interest at the statutory rate;                             —     reject the opposition made by Mou Dybfros A/S;
                                                                          —     uphold the registration of the trade mark KIAP MOU
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     sought by Oriental Kitchen;
                                                                          —     order Mou Dybfros A/S to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present case, who applied to take part               Applicant for the Com-        the applicant
in Competition COM/A/10/01, challenges the removal of                     munity trade mark:
question 25 from Test A of the selection procedure, following
the discovery of an alleged error in it. That decision prevented          The Community trade           the word mark ‘KIAP MOU’ regis-
her from obtaining the minimum requisite number of marks                  mark concerned:               tered for goods in Classes 29 and
and led to her failing that part of the test.                                                           30 (including meat and prepared
                                                                                                        dishes) — application No 950667
                                                                          Proprietor of the right to    Mou Dybfros A/S
In support of her arguments, and with regard to the content               the trade mark or sign
of the abovementioned question, the applicant claims that the             asserted by way of oppo-
Protocol incorporating the Schengen acquis into the European              sition in the opposition
Union is indeed the Second Protocol attached to the Treaty of
                                                                          proceedings:
Amsterdam and not, as the Commission claims, Decision
1999/436/EC.
                                                                          Trade mark or sign            the national trade mark ‘MOU’,
                                                                          asserted by way of oppo-      registered for goods in Classes 29
                                                                          sition in the opposition      and 30
                                                                          proceedings:
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/32               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23.11.2002
Decision of the Oppo-          rejection of the application for           principle of sound administration in that it did not ascertain
sition Division:               registration                               the powers of the director of the ‘Center Energy-Environment
                                                                          Research and Development’, which is merely a department of
Decision of the Board of       rejection of the applicant’s appeal        the applicant with no legal personality.
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:              —    since the word ‘mou’ in Lao-
                                    tian and Thai means ‘porc’,
                                    the trade mark ‘MOU’ is
                                    merely descriptive and thus
                                    may not be protected;
                                                                          Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Asian Institute
                               —    registration of the trade             of Technology against Commission of the European
                                    mark ‘MOU’ would in fact                                        Communities
                                    prevent the use of a word
                                    with meaning which must be
                                    used in order to describe the                                 (Case T-288/02)
                                    nature of the product to be
                                    sold.                                                         (2002/C 289/60)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Asian Institute                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of Technology against Commission of the European                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                          Communities                                     European Communities on 23 September 2002 by the Asian
                                                                          Institute of Technology, whose registered office is at Klong
                        (Case T-287/02)                                   Luang (Thailand), represented by Henri Teissier du Cros,
                                                                          lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                        (2002/C 289/59)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the European Commission of
                                                                                22 February 2002 to conclude a research contract with
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       the alleged director of the ‘Center Energy-Environment
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      Research and Development’ (CEERD) of the Asian Insti-
European Communities on 23 September 2002 by the Asian                          tute of Technology.
Institute of Technology, whose registered office is at Klong
Luang (Thailand), represented by Henri Teissier du Cros,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The Commission, by the contested decision, entered into a
—      annul the decision of the European Commission of 4 July            research contract with the ‘Center Energy-Environment
       2000 to conclude a research contract with the director of          Research and Development’, allegedly represented by its direc-
       the ‘Center Energy-Environment Research and Develop-               tor. That centre is a department of the applicant with no legal
       ment’ (CEERD) of the Asian Institute of Technology.                personality. The applicant further states that the person
                                                                          who signed the contract as director of the ‘Center Energy-
                                                                          Environment Research and Development’ left the department
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           on 31 December 2001. The contract was a follow-up contract
                                                                          to that at issue in Case T-287/02.
The Commission, by the contested decision, entered into a
research contract with the ‘Center Energy-Environment                     According to the applicant, the alleged director of the ‘Center
Research and Development’, represented by its director. That              Energy-Environment Research and Development’ had no man-
centre is a department of the applicant with no legal person-             date to conclude such a contract. The Commission thus
ality.                                                                    infringed the principle of sound administration in that it did
                                                                          not ascertain the powers of the director nor whether the
According to the applicant, the director of the ‘Center Energy-           person concerned was in fact a director.
Environment Research and Development’ had no mandate to
conclude such a contract. The Commission thus infringed the