ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Firstly, the Commission reached its decision as regards the contested entry on the basis errors of law and fact since the deficiencies in the key controls identified by it and the possible consequences on the declaration of eligible hectares during the 2006 claim year could not have posed a risk of 5 % to the entirety of relevant expenditures in Northern Ireland during that year. Such over-declarations could not have increased the reference amounts derived from payments to farmers during the years 2000-2002, and accordingly, could only have increased the number, and not the value, of the payments entitlements established in 2005. Approximately 78 % of the amount of the payment entitlements to be allocated and divided between eligible hectares declared by farmers in 2005 was determined by payments to the farmers concerned during the years 2000-2002 and would remain unaffected by errors in determining the number of eligible hectares in 2005 which were repeated in 2006. Furthermore, the provisions for reductions and exclusions, or penalties, apply subject to the principle of retrospective adjustment of payment entitlements, and subject to the principle that where a farmer makes an over-declaration of eligible hectares and payment entitlements, but the area of land determined to be eligible is sufficient to activate all the payment entitlements to which he is actually entitled, no penalty is payable. The Commission has misinterpreted the provisions which lay down these principles, and accordingly significantly over-estimated the amounts recoverable from farmers in Northern Ireland in respect of over-declaration during the claim year 2006.
—

annul Decision 2010/428/EU of the European Commission of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 59122x1507xNK603 (DAS-59122-7xDAS-Ø15Ø7xMON-ØØ6Ø3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/56

Action brought on 19 October 2010 — Seba Diș Tįcaret ve Naklįyat v OHIM — von Eicken (SEBA TRADITION ESTABLISHED 1932 20 FILTER)

(Case T-508/10)

()

2010/C 346/110

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Seba Diș Tįcaret ve Naklįyat A.S. (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: H. Wilde, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Johann Wilhelm von Eicken GmbH (Lübeck, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 August 2010 in Case R 0559/2009-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Coloured figurative mark, which contains the word elements ‘ESTABLISHED 1932 SEBA TRADITION’, for goods in Class 34.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The Applicant.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Johann Wilhelm von Eicken GmbH

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: German figurative mark, which contains the word elements ‘ESTABLISHED 1770 JOHANN WILHELM VON EICKEN TRADITION’, for goods in Class 34.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application was granted.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was rejected.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) because there is no likelihood of confusion of the marks at issue.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/30

Action brought on 1 November 2010 — Fruit of the Loom v OHIM — Blueshore Management (FRUIT)

(Case T-514/10)

()

2011/C 13/58

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (Bowling Green, USA) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and V. G. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Blueshore Management SA (Cernusco Sul Naviglio, Italy)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 August 2010 in case R 1686/2008-4; and

— Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘FRUIT’ for goods in classes 18, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark registration No 745216

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the Community trade mark in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 15(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to take account of (i) the presentation and significance of the word ‘FRUIT’ within the marks shown in the proprietor’s evidence of use, (ii) the evidence that the proprietor informally marketed its products under the name ‘FRUIT’, often using that mark verbally in dealings and transactions with its customers, and (iii) the evidence that the proprietor had used the mark ‘FRUIT’ as part of its marketing website.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/51

Action brought on 29 November 2010 — Omya v OHIM — Alpha Calcit (CALCIMATT)

(Case T-547/10)

()

2011/C 30/91

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Omya AG (Oftringen, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Kuschmirek, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH (Cologne, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 September 2010 in Case R 1370/2009-1, and order the defendant to register Community trade mark application No 5 200 654‘CALCIMATT’ for all the goods in respect of which application was sought;

— order the defendant to pay the costs;

— in the alternative, stay the proceedings until a final decision has been taken on whether OHIM is to remove the opposing mark EU 003513488 ‘CALCILAN’ from the register.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Omya AG.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CALCIMATT’ for goods in Classes 1 and 2.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Internationally registered word marks ‘CALCIPLAST’, ‘CALCILIT’ and ‘CALCICELL’ for goods in Classes 1 and 19, Community word marks ‘Calcilit’ and ‘CALCILAN’ for goods in Classes 1 and 19, and national word works ‘CALCICELL’ and ‘CALCIPLAST’ for goods in Class 1.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and refusal to register.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between opposing marks as regards the goods in respect of which application was sought.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/46

Action brought on 23 November 2010 — Kessel v OHIM — Janssen-Cilag (Premeno)

(Case T-536/10)

()

2011/C 30/83

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH (Mörfelden-Walldorf, Germany) (represented by: S. Bund, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Janssen-Cilag GmbH (Neuss, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 September 2010 in Case R 708/2010-4;

— Order the defendant and the intervener, in accordance with Article 87(2) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Premeno’ for goods in Class 5

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Janssen-Cilag GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘Pramino’ for goods in Class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as there is insufficient proof of use of the opposing trade mark and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion of the marks at issue.

The applicant also submits that the restriction of the list of goods and services is admissible.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/43

Action brought on 22 November 2010 — Häfele v OHIM (Vorfront)

(Case T-531/10)

()

2011/C 30/78

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG (Nagold, Germany) (represented by M. Eck and J. Dönch, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 September 2010 in Case R 570/2010-1;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Vorfront’ for goods in Classes 6, 7, 19 and 20.

Decision of the Examiner: refusal to register

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as the Community trade mark in question has distinctive character and is not purely descriptive

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/30

Action brought on 17 December 2010 — Aitic Penteo v OHIM — Atos Worldline (PENTEO)

(Case T-585/10)

2011/C 63/57

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Aitic Penteo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Atos Worldline SA (Bruxelles, Belgium)

Form of order sought

— Modify the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2010 in case R 774/2010-1 and grant the Community trade mark application No 5480561

— In the alternative, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2010 in case R 774/2010-1; and

— Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PENTEO’, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 5480561

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux trade mark registration No 772120 of the word mark ‘XENTEO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 37, 38 and 42; International trade mark registration No 863851 of the word mark ‘XENTEO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 37, 38 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes: (i) Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which prohibits any discrimination, requiring an equal treatment accordingly with the law, (ii) Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal disregarded the prior rights of the applicant, (iii) Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal disregarded facts and evidences submitted in due time by the applicant, and (iv) Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in assessment of likelihood of confusion.
—

Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/29

Action brought on 18 January 2011 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in black, beige, brown, dark red and grey colours)

(Case T-26/11)

2011/C 72/46

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmsbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 November 2010 in Case R 1317/2010-4;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, which shows a tartan pattern in black, beige, brown, dark red and grey colours, for goods in classes 18, 24 and 25.

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the registration.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the trade mark concerned is distinctive, and infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 because the Board of Appeal failed to deal with the applicant’s extensive factual and legal submissions.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/22

Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Fraas v OHIM (Dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red coloured checked pattern)

(Case T-50/11)

2011/C 89/44

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 November 2010 in Case R 1316/2010-4;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red coloured checked pattern for goods in Classes 18, 24, and 25

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as the Community trade mark at issue has distinctive character, and infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not examine the extensive factual and legal submissions of the applicant.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
1.

First plea, alleging that there is no legal basis for Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (1) and/or Article 16(2)(a) and (b) thereof — Under the first part of that plea, the applicant submits that Article 215 TFEU cannot serve as a legal basis for Regulation No 961/2010 since Decision 2010/413/CFSP does not make such provision; — Under the second part, the applicant claims that Article 215 TFEU cannot serve as a legal basis for Regulation No 961/2010 since Decision 2010/413/CFSP was not adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU. That decision should therefore be disregarded as inapplicable to the present case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/16

Action brought on 14 February 2011 — Formica v OHIM — Silicalia (CompacTop)

(Case T-82/11)

2011/C 113/32

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Formica, SA (Galdakao, Spain) (represented by: A. Goméz López, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Silicalia, SL (Valencia, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the Court to:

— declare as not being in accordance with Regulation EC No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark the decision of 9 December 2010 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM, in Case R 1083/2010-1;

— allow registration of the complex Community trade mark No 6 524 243 CompacTop, in Class 20; and

— order the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Formica

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘CompacTop’ for goods in Class 20.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Silicalia, SL

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national figurative marks containing the word elements ‘COMPACquartz’, ‘COMPACMARMOL&QUARTZ’ and ‘COMPAC MARMOL&QUARTZ’ for goods and services in Classes 19, 27, 35, 37 and 39.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) since there is no similarity or likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/10

Action brought on 1 February 2011 — Omnis Group Srl v European Commission

(Case T-74/11)

2011/C 95/16

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant(s): Omnis Group Srl (Bucarest, Romania) (represented by: D.-A.-F. Tarara, lawyer)

Defendant(s): European Commission

Form of order sought

— Grant this application for annulment of the decision of the defendant of 1 December 2010 in case COMP/39.784 — Omnis/Microsoft;

— Refer the case back to the defendant for a decision;

— In the alternative, the General Court should decide the case and uphold the applicant's complaint.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant is seeking, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the decision of the defendant of 1 December 2010 in Case COMP/39.784 — Omnis/Microsoft, which rejected the complaint made by the applicant concerning alleged anti-competitive conduct by M9icrosoft.

In support of its application, the applicant relies on the following pleas:

1. The first plea in law is based on the fact that the refusal by the defendant to investigate the abuses by Microsoft on the EAS/ERP (Enterprise Application Software/Enterprise Resource Planning) market is based on unfounded arguments.

2. The second plea in law is based on the fact that the defendant assessed the importance of the case wrongly, reaching the unfounded and unlawful conclusion that the issue raised by the applicant was of no interest to the EU.

3. The third plea in law is based on the fact that the decision of the defendant not to follow up the applicant’s complaint is unlawful and unfounded in that it infringes the rights of the applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 120/13

Action brought on 18 February 2011 — GRP Security v Court of Auditors

(Case T-87/11)

2011/C 120/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: GRP Security (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Osch, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— uphold the applicant’s pleas in law set out in this application,

— reserve to the applicant the right to produce any further legal pleas, supporting facts and evidence,

— admit this action as procedurally valid,

— uphold this action as to the substance,

— and therefore on the above stated grounds annul the contested decisions,

— reserve to the applicant the right to seek compensation for damage suffered by reason of the unlawful conduct of the Court of Auditors,

— order the Court of Auditors to pay all the costs of the proceedings,

— reserve to the applicant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of the decisions of the Court of Auditors of the European Union concerning, first, the administrative penalty of exclusion of the applicant from contracts and subsidies financed by the budget of the European Union for a period of three months and, second, termination of the services framework contract No LOG/2026/10/2 titled ‘Various security services’.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality, the rights of the defence and the right to a fair hearing, since the applicant acted in good faith and was not responsible for the false statements and misrepresentations made by one of its employees and since the Court of Auditors could have requested the replacement of the employee concerned instead of terminating the contract.

2. Second plea in law: manifest error of assessment, since the Court of Auditors did not take into account all the material in the file.
—

declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Blé Brunot DOGBO, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,