CELEX: C2003/239/41
Language: en
Date: 2003-10-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-260/03: Action brought on 18 July 2003 by Celltech R&D Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

C 239/22              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                     4.10.2003
Action brought on 18 July 2003 by Celltech R&D Limited                    Action brought on 28 July 2003 by Jürgen Schmoldt,
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                      Kaefer Isoliertechnik GmbH & Co. KG and Hauptverband
          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                         der Deutschen Bauindustrie e.V. against the Commission
                                                                                           of the European Communities
                        (Case T-260/03)
                                                                                                   (Case T-264/03)
                        (2003/C 239/41)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 239/42)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: German)
An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                European Communities on 28 July 2003 by Jürgen Schmoldt,
18 July 2003 by Celltech R&D Limited, Slough, (United                     Dallgow-Döberitz (Germany), Kaefer Isoliertechnik GmbH &
Kingdom), represented by D. Alexander, QC, and N. Jenkins,                Co. KG, Bremen (Germany), and Hauptverband der Deutschen
lawyer.                                                                   Bauindustrie e.V., Berlin (Germany), represented by
                                                                          H.-P. Schneider, Hanover.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the             —     annul Article 1 of, and Table 1 of the Annex to,
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                    Commission Decision 2003/312/EC of 9 April 2003,
      Marks and Designs) (‘OHIM’) of 19 May 2003 (Case                          published on 8 May 2003 (OJ 2003 L 114, p. 50) and
      R0659/2002-2) in whole or in part;                                        notified under no C(2003) 1161, on the publication of
                                                                                the reference of European standards relating to the
—     order OHIM to pay the costs of this Application.                          thermal insulation products EN 13162:2001 to EN 1
                                                                                13172:2001, with the result that Commission communi-
                                                                                cation 2001/C 358/08 of 15 December 2001 (OJ 2001
                                                                                C 358, p. 9), in so far as it concerns the products EN
                                                                                13162:2001 to EN 1 13172:2001, and Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 communication 2001/C 120/06 of 22 May 2003 (OJ
                                                                                2003 C 120, p. 17) be removed from the Official Journal
                                                                                of the European Union;
Trade mark concerned:        ‘CELLTECH’ —             Application
                             No 1731678.                                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Products or services:        Pharmaceutical, veterinary and
                             sanitary preparations, compounds
                             and substances (Class 5), surgical,          Pleas in law and main arguments
                             medical, dental and veterinary
                             apparatus        and     instruments
                             (Class 10), research and develop-
                                                                          On 23 May 2001, the European Committee for Standardisation
                             ment, consultancy services, all
                             relating to the biological, medical          adopted ten standards for thermal insulation products, the
                                                                          references for which were published in the Official Journal of
                             and chemical sciences (Class 41).
                                                                          the European Communities of 15 December 2001 (1). The Federal
                                                                          Republic of Germany subsequently objected to, inter alia,
Challenged       decision    Refusal of registration by the               these ten standards for thermal insulation products under
before the Board of          examiner.                                    Article 5(1) of Directive 89/106/EEC ( 2). The objection was
Appeal:                                                                   rejected by the contested decision.
Grounds submitted:           Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                             the Community Trade Mark Regu-               The applicants rely on both formal and substantive grounds.
                             lation 40/94/EEC.                            The applicants take the view that procedural errors were
                                                                          committed in so far as, contrary to Article 5(1) of Directive
                                                                          89/106, the Standing Committee on Construction failed to
                                                                          issue an opinion and in so far as the statement of reasons in