CELEX: C2003/101/79
Language: en
Date: 2003-04-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-51/03: Action brought on 11 February 2003 by Pi-Design AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

26.4.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 101/45
Action brought on 11 February 2003 by Pi-Design AG                                                       —      There is no basis for stating
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                            that the cafetière in question
          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                               is a manifestation of the ‘usu-
                                                                                                                al shape of the product’.
                         (Case T-51/03)
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                        (2003/C 101/79)
                  (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                          Action brought on 14 February 2003 by BPB plc against
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   the Commission of the European Communities
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                                                     (Case T-53/03)
11 February 2003 by Pi-Design AG, Triengen (Switzerland),
represented by Jacob S Ørndrup, lawyer
                                                                                                    (2003/C 101/80)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                   (Language of the case: English)
—     annul the decision of the defendant of 5 December 2002
      in Case No R452/2001-2 concerning EC trade mark
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      application No 000353854;
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 14 February 2003 by BPB plc,
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Slough, United Kingdom, represented by Thomas Sharpe QC
                                                                          and Mr Alexandre Nourry, Solicitor with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Community trade mark          A three-dimensional trade mark              —     Annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested Decision insofar
sought:                       in the form of a ‘cafetière’ (push-               as it relates to BPB
                              down coffee pot) — application
                              No 353854                                   —     In the alternative, annul Article 3 of the Decision insofar
                                                                                as it relates to BPB or, in the further alternative, reduce
                                                                                the fine imposed on BPB to such amount as the Court
Goods or services:            Nice classification 21 (non-elec-
                              tric coffee makers)                               determines in accordance with law
                                                                          —     Subject to the annulment of Article 3 of the Decision or
Decision before        the    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                                the reduction in the fine, order repayment of the principal
Board of Appeal:              examiner                                          sum paid by BPB together with such interest as the Court
                                                                                should determine in accordance with law
Decision of Board of          Dismissal of appeal
Appeal:                                                                   —     Order the Commission to pay BPB’s costs.
Pleas in law:                 —     The defendant’s decision is
                                    contrary to Article 7(1)(b) of
                                    Regulation No 40/94 (1):              Pleas in law and main arguments
                              —     The trade mark has the
                                    necessary           distinctive       By its decision which forms the subject matter of the present
                                    character.                            action, the defendant found that the applicant and three
                                                                          other undertakings, namely Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche
                              —     The fact that the plaintiff’s         Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux, had
                                    cafetière design is copied            infringed Article 81 paragraph 1 EC by participating in a
                                    should not in itself lead to          complex and continuing agreement from 1992 until 1998
                                    the trade mark application’s          with the object of stabilising the principal EU markets in
                                    being refused on grounds of           plasterboard. The applicant denies that any agreement of the
                                    lack of distinctive character.        type alleged existed.