ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/19

Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Pensa Pharma v OHIM — Ferring and Farmaceutisk Lab Ferring (pensa)

(Case T-546/12)

2013/C 55/33

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pensa Pharma, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz and M. González Gordon, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) and Farmaceutisk Lab Ferring A/S (Vanlose, Denmark)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 October 2012 in case R 1884/2011-5; and

— Order the defendant and if the case might be, the interveners, to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of the appeal incurred within the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘pensa’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 44 — Community trade mark registration No 4963542

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The requests for a declaration of invalidity were based on the grounds laid down in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) and Article 53(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, and on the Benelux trade mark registration No 377513 of the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Accepted the request for a declaration of invalidity against the CTM for all the contested goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 53(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/20

Action brought on 27 December 2012 — NIOC v Council

(Case T-578/12)

2013/C 79/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: National Iran Oil Co. (NIOC) (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— declare that Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 is inapplicable with regard to it;

— declare that Decision 2012/635/CFSP is inapplicable with regard to it;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which in essence are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-577/12 NIOC and Others v Council.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/21

Action brought on 26 December 2012 — Central Bank of Iran v Council

(Case T-563/12)

2013/C 55/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Central Bank of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 (2), in so far as those measure apply to the applicant;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that none of the legal criteria for listing the applicant is fulfilled, the Council erred manifestly in considering that any of the criteria for listing was fulfilled, and there is no valid legal basis for its designation.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the contested measures.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial review.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision to designate the applicant has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business, and reputation.

(1) Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58)

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/28

Action brought on 7 January 2013 — Group Nivelles v OHIM — Easy Sanitairy Solutions (Representation of a shower drainage pipe)

(Case T-15/13)

2013/C 108/72

Language in which the application was lodged: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Group Nivelles (Gingelom, Belgium) (represented by: H. Jonkhout, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Easy Sanitairy Solutions BV (Losser, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 October 2012 in Case 2004/2010-3 and, correcting the grounds as necessary, uphold the decision of the Cancellation Division of OHIM of 23 September 2010 in Case ICD 000007024, notification of the latter decision having been received on 1 October 2010.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design representing a shower drainage pipe — Community design No 107834-0025

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Easy Sanitairy Solutions BV

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Group Nivelles

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Articles 4 to 9 of Regulation No 6/2002

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Design declared invalid.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal’s decision is based on incorrect grounds and, in factual terms, on a false point of comparison.
Second plea in law, alleging errors of law, the CST having examined the indications of misuse of power in an isolated rather than global manner, without seeking to establish whether the indications taken together, given their number, made it possible to call into question the lawfulness of the decisions contested at first instance.

In addition, the appellant argues that the CST disregarded, in the light of the inequality of arms of the parties, the right to a fair hearing by refusing to adopt measures of organisation of the procedure enabling the indications of misuse of power to be emphasised and evidence to be adduced of a factor which could have been demonstrated only by such a measure.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/20

Action brought on 21 January 2013 — Cactus/OHIM — Del Rio Rodríguez (CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ)

(Case T-24/13)

2013/C 101/43

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cactus SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Isabel Del Rio Rodríguez (Malaga, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 19 October 2012;

— Order the Defendant and — if applicable — Isabel Del Rio Rodriguez to jointly and severally pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ’, for goods and services in classes 31, 39 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 8 489 643

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 963 694 of the word mark ‘CACTUS’ for goods and services in classes 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part and application rejected in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the appealed decision and rejection of the opposition in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 76(1) and (2) and 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/24

Action brought on 5 February 2013 — Three-N-Products Private v OHIM — Munindra Holding (AYUR)

(Case T-63/13)

2013/C 101/52

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Three-N-Products Private Ltd (New Delhi, India) (represented by: M. Thewes and T. Chevrier, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Munindra Holding BV (Lelystad, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision R 2296/2011-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 November 2012;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision as regards the ‘consultancy services in the field of herbal remedies, nutrition, health and beauty care’, in Class 44;

— order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘AYUR’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 16 and 44 — Community trade mark No 5 429 469

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Munindra Holding BV

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Registered Benelux word mark ‘AYUS’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 29, 30 and 31

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/26

Action brought on 30 January 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB

(Case T-51/13)

2013/C 86/44

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— order the EIB to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 536 610,22, as compensation for the damage which the applicant suffered as a result of the loss of the opportunity to be awarded the framework agreement, with compensatory interest from 31/01/2008 until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with default interest from the date of delivery of the judgment in this dispute until full payment;·

— order the EIB to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 150 000, as exemplary damages, with compensatory interest from 31 January 2008 until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with default interest from the date of delivery of the judgment in this dispute until full payment;

— order the EIB to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant claims, under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU read together with Article 266 TFEU, before the General Court of the European Union compensation for the damage which it has suffered because of the unlawful conduct of the European Investment Bank (‘the EIB’).

That damage arose when, as was ruled by the General Court in its judgment of 20 September 2011 in Case Τ-461/08 Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB, the EIB unlawfully rejected the applicant’s tender in the call for tenders relating to the award of a framework agreement for the provision of services.

In that context, the applicant claims, first, damages by way of compensation for the damage which the applicant suffered as a result of the loss of the opportunity to be awarded the framework agreement, as a means of restoration of the status quo ante, and, secondly, exemplary damages for the unlawful and improper conduct of the EIB towards the applicant.

The applicant maintains that the conditions for establishing the EIB’s non-contractual liability, as set out in settled case-law, to enable it to be compensated are satisfied.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/21

Action brought on 20 February 2013 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (CAMOMILLA)

(Case T-100/13)

2013/C 141/37

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Camomilla SpA (Buccinasco, Italy)

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 29 November 2012 in Case R 1616/2011-1 by finding that the absolute ground for invalidity under Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — based on the bad faith of the proprietor of the Community trade mark at the time when the application was filed — and the relative ground for invalidity under Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of the regulation, are made out;

— In the alternative, and only in the event that the Court should consider the documents produced at the time of the appeal before the Board of Appeal inadmissible and should consider those documents essential for the purposes of granting the appeal, annul the contested decision on the ground of failure to have regard to the right to be heard and infringement of the rights of the defence and refer the case back to the Cancellation Division for a decision on the substance;

— In any event, call upon OHIM to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the trade mark proprietor to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: word mark ‘CAMOMILLA’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30 and 33 — Community trade mark No 7 077 55

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Camomilla SpA

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘CAMOMILLA’ for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Cancellation Division: application rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/32

Action brought on 12 February 2013 — FTI Touristik v OHIM (BigXtra)

(Case T-81/13)

2013/C 108/80

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: FTI Touristik GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by A. Parr, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 November 2012 in Case R 2521/12011-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘BigXtra’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 39, 41, 42 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 925 868

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 147/21

Action brought on 8 March 2013 — Eltek/OHIM — Eltec Elektronik (ELTEK)

(Case T-139/13)

2013/C 147/38

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Eltek SpA (Casale Monferrato, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eltec Elektronik AG (Mainz, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Board of Appeal’s decision of 7 January 2013 (as rectified by corrigendum of 22 January 2013) notified and received on 10 January 2013 in Case R 511/2012-1, pertaining to opposition proceedings No B 992 851, and application for Community trade mark registration no. 4 368 064, by reason of the full satisfaction of all the requirements for valid registration of each product;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs with regard to the proceedings before the Court and order the opponent to pay the costs with regard to the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ELTEK’, for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No 4 368 064

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: German trade mark and International registration ‘ELTEC’, designating the Benelux, Spain, France, Italy, Austria and Portugal, for goods and services in classes 9, 37, 38, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially dismissed the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and rejected the Community trade mark applied for with respect to certain goods of class 9

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 147/27

Action brought on 21 March 2013 — Benelli Q.J./OHIM — Demharter (MOTO B)

(Case T-169/13)

2013/C 147/48

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Benelli Q.J. Srl (Pesaro, Italy) (represented by: P. Lukácsi, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Demharter GmbH (Dillingen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the defendant’s decision and remit the case to OHIM for further examination and a new decision due to the fact that the prior marks of the applicant shall be considered earlier trade marks within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009 and therefore the applicant’s opposition based on likelihood of confusion shall be assessed as to its substance;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MOTO B’ claiming the colours black, white, red, gold, green, brown and grey for goods in classes 9, 12 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 8 780 926

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Well-known, Italian, non-registered figurative marks «MOTOBI» et al.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that contested acts either de jure or de facto impose a residence requirement on Central Clearing Counterparties (‘CCPs’) that wish to undertake clearing or settlement operations in the euro currency whose daily trades exceed a certain volume. Further or alternatively they restrict or impede the nature and/or extent of services or capital which may be supplied to CCPs located in non-euro area Member States. The contested acts infringe all or any of Articles 48, 56 and/or 63 TFEU, in that: — CCPs established in non-euro area Member States, such as the United Kingdom, will be obliged to relocate their centres of administration and control to Member States which are members of the Eurosystem. They will also be obliged to re-incorporate as legal persons recognised in the domestic law of another Member State; — In the event that such CCPs do not relocate as required, they will be precluded from access to the financial markets in the Eurosystem Member States, either on the same terms as CCPs established in those territories, or at all; — Such non-resident CCPs will not be entitled to facilities offered by the ECB or the National Central Banks (‘NCBs’) of the Eurosystem, either on the same terms or at all; — As a result, the ability of such CCPs to offer clearing or settlement services in the euro currency to customers in the Union will be restricted or even prohibited in its entirety.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/30

Action brought on 11 February 2013 — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon/OHIM — Staccata (QUARTODIMIGLIO)

(Case T-76/13)

2013/C 108/77

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA (Saint-Imier, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Staccata Srl (Como, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision issued on 26 November 2012 (Case R 62/2012-5) on the grounds that articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 have indeed been fulfilled;

— Order the OHIM and STACCATA S.r.l. to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing a device of extended wings and the word element ‘QUARTODIMIGLIO’ for goods in classes 9, 14, 16, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 9 260 597

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative marks containing a device of extended wings and some of them the word element ‘LONGINES’ — Community trade mark registration No 225 714, International registrations No 401 319, No 529 334, No 610 902 and No 298 063 for goods in classes 9 and 14

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.