ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/41

Action brought on 10 October 2014 — Hong Kong Group v OHIM — WE Brand (W E)

(Case T-718/14)

(2014/C 431/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hong Kong Group Oy (Vantaa, Finland) (represented by: J. Spåre, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WE Brand Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark including the word element ‘W E’ — Application for registration No 1 0 7 63 795

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 August 2014 in Case R 2305/2013-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and uphold the application for a Community trade mark registration lodged by the applicant;

— order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for listing the Applicant in Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, and Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 (the ‘Contested Measures’). The Council is obliged to provide the specific reasons why a particular entity has been included in the restrictive measures in question. The Council failed to state any reasons for its decision to apply the Contested Measures to the Applicant, or alternatively has failed to provide sufficient/adequate reasons or even to notify the Applicant of its inclusion, and has accordingly not complied with this obligation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/36

Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Ice Mountain Ibiza v OHIM — Etyam (ocean beach club ibiza)

(Case T-753/14)

(2015/C 026/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero and F. Miazzetto, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Etyam, SL (Islas Baleares, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ocean beach club ibiza’ — Application for registration No 1 0 6 10 491

Procedure before OHIM: Partial opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 July 2014 in Case R 2293/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including all those resulting to date from proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM at earlier stages of the proceedings which have led to the present action.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/44

Action brought on 10 October 2014 — Universal Protein Supplements Corp. d/b/a Universal Nutrition v OHIM — H. Young Holdings (animal)

(Case T-727/14)

(2014/C 431/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Universal Protein Supplements Corp. d/b/a Universal Nutrition (New Brunswick, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: H. Young Holdings plc (Newbury, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘animal’ — Community trade mark No 2 8 22 807

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 July 2014 in Case R 2054/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and the other party to pay their own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/61

Action brought on 12 December 2014 — Geilenkothen Fabrik für Schutzkleidung v OHIM (Cottonfeel)

(Case T-822/14)

(2015/C 046/79)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Geilenkothen Fabrik für Schutzkleidung GmbH (Gerolstein-Müllenborn, Germany) (represented by: M. Straub, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Cottonfeel’ — Application No 1 1 9 35 236

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2014 in Case R 2579/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

Compensate Mr Hassan, on the basis of Articles 268 and 340 TFEU, for the loss caused to him by the adoption against him of the restrictive measures referred to above, as follows: — hold that the Council of the European Union is non-contractually liable for the pecuniary harm suffered and which will be suffered in the future and for the non-pecuniary harm; — award Mr Hassan the sum of EUR 250000 per month, with effect from 1 September 2011, in order to compensate him for the pecuniary loss suffered; — award Mr Hassan the symbolic sum of EUR 1 in respect of the non-pecuniary loss suffered, — and order the Council of the European Union to pay compensation for future non-pecuniary loss;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/52

Action brought on 29 December 2014 — Spokey v OHIM — Leder Jaeger (SPOKEY)

(Case T-846/14)

(2015/C 065/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Spokey sp. z o.o. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: B. Matusiewicz-Kulig, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leder Jaeger GmbH (Siegen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘SPOKEY’ — Community trade mark No 6 777 312

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2014 in Case R 525/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— if necessary, amend the contested decision insofar as it refers to specific goods within Class 18;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 December 2014 — Unilever v OHIM — Technopharma (Fair & Lovely)

(Case T-811/14)

(2015/C 073/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Unilever NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Fox, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Technopharma Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Fair & Lovely’ — Application for registration No 4 045 092

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 in Case R 1004/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and grant a suspension of the proceedings in Case R 1004/2013-4 pending determination of the national cancellation actions against the prior national registrations and application relied on by Technopharma Ltd. in Spain, Germany, France, the Benelux ant the United Kingdom;

— order OHIM and any intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 64(1) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/35

Action brought on 19 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-768/14)

(2015/C 065/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare that the sum of EUR 3 77 733,93, which the Commission paid to the applicant in respect of the POCEMON project, constitutes eligible costs and that accordingly the applicant is under no obligation to repay that sum as unduly paid; and

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action concerns the liability of the Commission under the agreement No 216088 for the performance of the project ‘Point Of CarE MONitoring and Diagnostics for Autoimmune Diseases’ (POCEMON), under Article 272 TFEU. In particular, the applicant maintains that, although it performed its contractual obligations, the Commission, contrary to the terms of that agreement, the principle of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights and the principle of proportionality, sought the recovery of sums paid to ΑΝΚΟ as not being eligible costs.

For that reason, the applicant maintains, first, that the Commission relies on wholly unfounded and in any event unproven grounds in order to reject almost all the costs incurred by ANKO as being ineligible and to seek the repayment of the sum paid to ΑΝΚΟ in respect of the POCEMON project. The applicant maintains, second, that the Commission, in rejecting 98,68 % of the contribution it is obliged to pay, because that allegedly did not correspond to eligible costs, which the applicant incurred for the requirements of the project, infringes the principles of the prohibition of abuse of rights and of proportionality.
—

Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2014 not to raise objections to tax exemptions for certain advertising materials (SA.35683);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/29

Action brought on 5 December 2014 — DenizBank v Council

(Case T-798/14)

(2015/C 089/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DenizBank A.Ș. (Esentepe, Turkey) (represented by: M. Lester and O. Jones, Barristers, R. Mattick and S. Utku, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (2) (together the contested measures) insofar as they apply to the applicant;

— declare the inapplicability pursuant to Article 277 TFEU as regards Article 1 of the 8 September Decision, and Article 1(5) of the 8 September Regulation; and

— order the Council to pay the 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 the Council has breached its duty to give reasons for imposing the contested measures on the applicant. Further, the applicant contends that the Council has given it no reasons at all for imposing the contested measures on it, nor even informed it of its inclusion.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence, including its right to a fair hearing and to effective judicial review. The applicant submits that the Council has given the applicant no reasons or evidence for imposing the contested measures on it, no opportunity for it to comment on the case against it, and has thereby also impeded the Court from ‘exercising effective judicial review’.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that insofar as it has imposed the contested measures on the applicant, the Council has breached the Ankara Agreement between Turkey and the EU (and its Additional Protocol) in a number of respects.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality, and has imposed an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s fundamental rights.

(1) Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 271, p. 54).

(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 271, p. 3).
7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging: (i) infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, Article 1d(1) and (6) and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations, Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, and the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU (failure to provide a statement of reasons); (ii) breach of the principle of proportionality; and (iii) distortion of the facts. — The applicant notes, in that regard, that the Commission justified the restriction to three languages on the basis of the need for new recruits to be able immediately to communicate within the institutions. That statement of reasons is, it argues, a distortion of the facts because the three languages in question are not the ones used most frequently in communications between different language groups within the institutions; the restriction is also a disproportionate restriction of the fundamental right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of language, since there are less restrictive means of ensuring quicker communication within the institutions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/37

Action brought on 22 January 2015 — GRE v OHIM (Mark1)

(Case T-32/15)

(2015/C 089/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Mark1’ — Application No 1 2 0 52 437

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2014 in Case R 647/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 81/25

Action brought on 13 January 2015 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten v OHIM — Mareea Comtur (airpass.ro)

(Case T-14/15)

(2015/C 081/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH (Neu Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, Solicitor, and G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Mareea Comtur SRL (Deva, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘airpass.ro’ — Application for registration No 10 649 358

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 October 2014 in Case R 1918/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision in as much as it concerns the services in class 35;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/44

Action brought on 18 February 2015 — Schoeller Corporation v OHIM — Sqope (SCOPE)

(Case T-90/15)

(2015/C 118/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Schoeller Corporation GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: D. van Ackeren, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sqope SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SCOPE’ — Application No 4 5 02 341

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 in Case R 2381/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the services financial analysis and financial information;

— order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 January 2015 — Deutsche Post v OHIM — Media Logistik (PostModern)

(Case T-13/15)

(2015/C 107/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and C. Giersdorf, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Media Logistik GmbH (Dresden, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘PostModern’ — Application No 4 276 821

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2014 in Case R 2063/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and, if applicable, the other party to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/35

Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Navitar v OHIM — Elukuva (NaviTar)

(Case T-93/15)

(2015/C 127/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Navitar, Inc. (Rochester, United States) (represented by: J. Mattes, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MTÜ Elukuva (Tallinn, Estonia)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘NaviTar’ — Application for registration No 11 147 246

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2014 in Case R 401/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

— order MTÜ Elukuva to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, in case MTÜ Elukuva should become an intervening party in this case.

Plea(s) in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/31

Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Auyantepui Corp. v OHIM — Magda Rose (Mr Jones)

(Case T-8/15)

(2015/C 118/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Auyantepui Corp., SA (Panama, Panama) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Magda Rose GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Mr Jones’ — Application for registration No 10 669 794

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2014 in Case R 49/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision and grant the application for the trade mark;

— Order OHIM and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/60

Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Tubes Radiatori v OHIM — Antrax It (Heating radiators)

(Case T-98/15)

(2015/C 138/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tubes Radiatori Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro, M. Balestriero and P. Menapace, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design for ‘heating radiators’ — Community design No 169 370-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2014 in Case R 1643/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and, consequently, find and declare that Community design No 169 370-0002, belonging to Tubes Radiatori Srl, is valid, since it is new and has individual character;

— order OHIM to pay the costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 1d of Regulation (EC) No 216/96, the adversarial principle, and the duty to provide a statement of reasons;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/31

Action brought on 18 March 2015 — Unicorn v OHIM — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN)

(Case T-125/15)

(2015/C 171/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Unicorn a.s. (Praha, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mercilink Equipment Leasing Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘UNICORN’ — Community trade mark No 11 014 701

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 January 2015 in Case R 150/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— OHIM did not properly take into consideration evidence submitted by the applicant;