CELEX: C2002/289/57
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-285/02: Action brought on 20 September 2002 by Eva Vega Rodríguez against Commission of the European Communities

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: