CELEX: C2003/275/84
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-320/03: Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Citicorp against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

C 275/50                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       15.11.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             —     annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
The applicant received a grant from the Commission in 1996                         Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
within the framework of a project to create a joint venture                        Marks and Designs) of 25 June 2003 (Case R 85/2002-
with a Polish undertaking. The request for a grant was based                       3);
on application of a regional development plan entitled ‘Joint
Venture PHARE TACIS Program’. Following an investigation                     —     order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
carried out in 2002 at the applicant’s premises and an                             Office.
exchange of correspondence between the applicant and the
Commission, the latter, by a missive of 8 July 2003, instructed
the bank acting as financial intermediary for the development
plan to effect full recovery of the funds paid to the applicant.             Pleas in law and main arguments
It is this notification which constitutes the decision under
challenge by the applicant.                                                  Trade mark concerned:        ‘LIVE RICHLY’ (word) — Appli-
                                                                                                          cation No. 2112647.
In support of its action, the applicant first invokes an alleged
breach of the provisions of Regulation No 1 (1) inasmuch as                  Products or services:        ‘Financial and monetary services
the contested decision was drafted in English and not in                                                  and real estate affairs; in particu-
French, even though it was addressed to the applicant, which                                              lar: banking; credit card; commer-
is a French company. The applicant also pleads an alleged                                                 cial and consumer lending and
failure to comply with the four-year limitation period laid                                               financing; real estate and mort-
down in Article 3 of Council Regulation No 2988/95 (2). The                                               gage brokerage; trust, estate and
applicant further submits that the contested decision, which                                              fiduciary management, planning
was not signed by the competent Commissioner but by a Head                                                and consulting; investment and
of Unit and an administrator, infringes the principle of                                                  investment advisory and con-
collegiate responsibility and originates from an authority                                                sulting; securities brokerage and
lacking competence.                                                                                       trading services facilitating secure
                                                                                                          financial transactions, insurance
                                                                                                          services; in particular, underwrit-
The applicant contends further that the contested decision is                                             ing and sales of property, casualty
vitiated by a substantive inaccuracy as to the facts, lacks any                                           and life insurance policies and
legal basis, fails to satisfy the obligation to state reasons, and                                        annuity contracts’ (Class 36)
infringes the principles of proportionality and audi alteram
partem and the right to due process.                                         Challenged       Decision    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                             before the Board of          examiner
                                                                             Appeal:
(1) Regulation No 1 of the Council determining the languages to be
    used by the European Economic Community (OJ English Special              Pleas in law:                Violation of Articles 7(1)(b) and
    Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).                                                                            73, first and second sentences, of
(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
                                                                                                          Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
    1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial
    interests (OJ L 312 of 23.12.1995, pp. 1 to 4).
                                                                             Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Juckem GmbH
Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Citicorp against                      and Others against European Parliament and Council of
    the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                           the European Union
                          (Case T-320/03)                                                            (Case T-321/03)
                          (2003/C 275/84)                                                            (2003/C 275/85)
                     (Language of the case: English)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal               An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 the European Union was brought before the Court of First
European Communities on 15 September 2003 by Citicorp,                       Instance on 8 September 2003 by Juckem GmbH and 244
New York (USA), represented by Dr V. von Bomhard,                            other companies, represented by D. Waalbroeck and N. Ram-
Dr A. Pohlmann and Dr. A. Renck, lawyers.                                    pal, avocats.