ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 359/15

Action brought on 30 September 2013 — H&M Hennes & Mauritz/OHMI — Yves Saint Laurent (handbags)

(Case T-525/13)

2013/C 359/30

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yves Saint Laurent SAS (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the defendant’s Third Board of Appeal of 8 July 2013 in case R 207/2012-3;

— declare the registered Community design No. 613294-0001 invalid;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal;

— furthermore, in case the other party intervenes in this case, order Yves Saint Laurent SAS to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for the product ‘Handbags’ — registered Community design No 613294-0001.

Proprietor of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Lack of individual character based on Article 6 of Council Regulation No 6/2002

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 6 of Council Regulation No 6/2002.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to meaningfully evaluate for itself whether the applicant satisfied the relevant criteria. In particular, the applicant states that the Commission: (a) failed to seek and/or obtain the underlying evidence for the allegations; (b) failed to ensure the statement of reasons was coterminous with the reason relied upon by the United Nations Sanctions Committee and failed to seek and/or obtain sufficient detail of the allegations such as to permit the applicant to answer such effectively; (c) failed to assess whether any of the allegations are based upon material tainted by torture; and (d) failed to seek and/or obtain any relevant exculpatory material.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council erred manifestly in its assessment that any of the listing criteria has been fulfilled as regards either of the applicants, and that there is no valid legal basis for the applicants’ designation.
—

According to the applicants, the Commission misinterprets the initiative in stating that the boost to the situation of national minorities cannot be seen as helping to reduce disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 174 TFEU. The applicants allege that the promoters of the initiative were not seeking to improve the situation of national minorities but to ensure that the cohesion policy of the European Union could not be used to eliminate or weaken the national linguistic and cultural characteristics of those regions, and that that the economic resources and objectives of the European Union could not be converted into instruments, however indirect, of policies against minorities.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 907 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, concerning the right to good administration. The applicant claims that the Commission makes unlawful use of the possibility of requesting information, and thus suspending the deadline of nine months, in order to avoid a future application of Article 909 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, or at least to postpone it. It also constitutes breach of the principle of good administration for the Commission — as regards an issue for which a deadline of nine months in principle applies — to have conferred upon itself the right to institute a full investigation in 2013 into an application for remission that was submitted at the end of 2007 relating to imports from 1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/14

Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Pell Amar Cosmetics v OHIM — Alva Management (Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti)

(Case T-621/13)

2014/C 31/25

Language in which the application was lodged: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Pell Amar Cosmetics SRL (Băile, Romania) (represented by: E. Grecu, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alva Management GmbH (Icking, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Case R 388/2013-4;

— order OHIM and Alva Management GmbH to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Pell Amar Cosmetics SRL

Community trade mark concerned: the black and white figurative mark containing the word element ‘Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti’ (Community trade mark application No 10 109 981)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Alva Management GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community registration No 6 645 071, German registration No 1 161 287, and international registrations Nos 588 232 and 657 169 of the word mark ‘PERLAMAR’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the Community trade mark concerned and the trade mark cited in opposition.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/33

Action brought on 22 November 2013 — easyGroup IP Licensing v OHIM — TUI (easyAir-tours)

(Case T-608/13)

2014/C 24/60

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TUI AG (Hannover, Germany)

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 5 September 2013 given in Case R 1029/2012-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘easyAir-tours’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 36, 39 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 220 849

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registrations designating the European Union, Community trade mark registration and national trade mark registration of a figurative mark containing inter alia the verbal element ‘airtours’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/26

Action brought on 6 December 2013 — Gako Konietzko v OHIM (Shape of packaging)

(Case T-654/13)

2014/C 39/46

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gako Konietzko GmbH (Bamberg, Germany) (represented by S. Reinhardt, 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 19 September 2013 in Case R 2232/2012-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the three-dimensional mark, representing the shape of packaging, for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 10 — Community trade mark application No 10899037

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 (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/13

Action brought on 26 November 2013 — Romonta v Commission

(Case T-614/13)

2014/C 31/24

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Romonta GmbH (Seegebiet Mansfelder Land, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke, M. Vollmer, C. Telschow und A. Schulze, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2013/448/EU, OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27), in so far as Article 1(1) thereof rejects granting the applicant the supplementary quotas requested for the third trading period of the 2013 to 2020 emissions trading on the basis of the hardship clause under Paragraph 9(5) of the German Law on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality In the applicant’s view, the contested decision infringes the principle of proportionality, as the prohibition on the allocation of supplementary allowances on the basis of cases of hardship is incorrect in the light of the objective formulated by the defendant and in addition is completely disproportionate to the disadvantage faced by the applicant. In the alternative on this point the applicant claims that decision 2011/278/EU (1) is contrary to European law and is invalid.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of subsidiarity In the context of this plea in law, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the principle of subsidiarity, according to which the European Union’s action must be limited to what is necessary. Contrary to the Commission’s argument, the Member States retain a (albeit limited) right to adopt rules on the allocation of allowances. Those rules, the adoption of which remain within the competency of the Member States, include cases of hardship, such as those under Paragraph 9(5) of the German Law on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights Here, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes its fundamental rights to freedom to conduct a business, freedom to choose an occupation and property, without those infringements being justified by one of the objectives of general interest or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others recognised by the European Union.

(1) 2011/278/EU: Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2011) 2772) (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/10

Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Time v OHIM (InStyle)

(Case T-651/13)

2014/C 61/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Time Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: D. Cañadas Arcas, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 September 2013 given in Case R 827/2013-2;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceeding incurred before the Office.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 11 264 223

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected partially the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/36

Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Granette & Starorežná Distilleries v OHIM — Bacardi (42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42 % vol.)

(Case T-607/13)

2014/C 45/62

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Granette & Starorežná Distilleries a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bacardi Co. Ltd (Vaduz, Liechtenstein)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— join the proceedings in this case to the proceedings in Case T-435/12;

— dismiss the action brought by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal against the defendant’s decision of 9 July 2012 in Case R 2100/2011-2 (Case T-435/12);

— alter the defendant’s decision of 16 September 2013 in Case R 1605/2012-2 so as to reject the form of order sought by the other party to the proceedings No B 1753550 against the application for the Community trade mark ‘42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42 % vol’;

— order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s costs in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Granette & Starorežná Distilleries

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42 % vol.’

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bacardi Co. Ltd

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International and national trade mark containing the word element ‘42 BELOW’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/11

Action brought on 11 December 2013 — BH Stores v OHIM — Alex Toys (ALEX)

(Case T-657/13)

2014/C 61/19

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: BH Stores BV (Curaçao) (represented by: T. Dolde and M. Hawkins, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alex Toys LLC (Greenwich, United States of America)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 September 2013 given in Case R 1950/2012-2;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of 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 word mark ‘ALEX’ for goods in Classes 16, 20, and 28 — Community trade mark application No 6 540 173

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The German trade mark registration Nos 1 049 274 and 648 968 for the word mark ‘ALEX’ and the German trade mark registration No 39 925 705 for the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘ALEX’ for goods in Class 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 75 and 8(1)(b) CTMR
Action brought on 4 December 2013 — Zoltán Lomnici v European Parliament

(Case T-650/13)

(2014/C 71/41)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Zoltán Lomnici (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Z. Lomnici, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 17 October 2013 concerning Petition No 1298/2012

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a plea of failure to observe the obligation to state reasons and breach of the right of every Union citizen to a fair hearing. In that regard, he points out, inter alia, that his petition was filed without further action without any reasons being given, that he was not invited to the meeting and that he was not notified of the decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/44

Action brought on 31 December 2013 — ENAC v Commission and TEN-T EA

(Case T-695/13)

2014/C 52/83

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Ente nazionale per l’aviazione civile (ENAC) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Garofoli, lawyer, and G. Palmieri, Agent)

Defendants: Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA), European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s note of 23 October 2013, ref. Ares (203) 3321778, concerning the ‘Study for developing the intermodality of Bergamo-Orio al Serio Airport’, in which the Commission announced both the launch of the procedure for obtaining reimbursement of part of the financial assistance granted for the carrying-out of that study and the issuing of a debit note for a total of EUR 158 517,54;

— annul the decision of 18 March 2013 adopted by the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA), referred to in the Commission’s note of 23 October 2013, concerning the ‘Closure of Action 2009-IT-91407-S — Study for developing the intermodality of Bergamo-Orio al Serio Airport — Commission Decision C(2010) 4456’, in so far as it found that the costs related to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which had already been carried out, could not be identified, and, thus, could not be subsidised, and requested repayment of EUR 158 517,54.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decisions at issue in the present case are the same as those contested in Case T-270/13 and Case T-692/13 SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to the ones raised in those cases.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/39

Action brought on 31 December 2013 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)

(Case T-721/13)

2014/C 112/51

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Directv Group, Inc. (El Segundo, United States) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bolloré SA (Érgue Gaberic, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 October 2013 given in Case R 1961/2012-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘DIRECTV’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark registration No 243 774

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partially revoked CTM registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and revoked CTM registration in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) CTMR.
—

annul Decision No 110655 of 14 October 2013, which fixed the definitive allowance granted by the European Parliament to the Alliance of European National Movements in respect of 2012 at EUR 186 292,12 and consequently decided that the Alliance of European National Movements should reimburse EUR 45 476,00, having regard to the fact that EUR 231 412,80 has already been allocated to the applicant association;
4.

Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the right to property, the right freely to conduct business, the right to respect for family life and the principle of proportionality Finally, the applicants submit that their renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists infringes their right to property and to conduct business freely, as well as the second applicant’s right to respect for family life. The applicants are of the view that their inclusion in the sanctions lists constitutes a disproportionate interference, is manifestly inappropriate to realise the objectives pursued by the contested legal acts and in any event goes beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.
2.

Second plea: infringement of Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1), and also the misapplication of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1). The Italian Republic argues in that regard that the decision requires the Italian authorities to add, to the sums owed by the undertakings in repayment of the State aid, interest at a compound rate, as provided for in Article 11 of Regulation No 794/2004. The Italian Government contests that requirement, arguing that, in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and, in particular, the judgment in Case C-295/07 Commission v Département du Loiret and Scott SA), interest calculated in such a manner cannot be applied in relation to recovery decisions notified prior to the entry into force of Regulation No 794/2004, still less in relation to decisions notified prior to the publication of the Commission Communication on the interest rates to be applied when aid granted unlawfully is recovered (OJ 2003 C 110, p. 21).