ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)

(Case T-616/13) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger insert - Ground for invalidity - Lack of visibility of part of a complex product - Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2015/C 073/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aic S.A. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, Legal Adviser)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: ACV Manufacturing (Seneffe, Belgium)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 293/2012-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between ACV Manufacturing and Aic S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Aic S.A. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/49

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — AN v Commission

(Case T-512/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Article 22a(3) of the Staff Regulations - Failure to adjudicate - Distortion of facts))

(2015/C 046/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: AN (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot and R. Murru, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2013, in AN v Commission (F-111/10, ECR — Staff Cases, EU:F:2013:114) and seeking annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber), in AN v Commission (F 111/10, ECR — Staff Cases, EU:F:2013:114), in so far as it failed to adjudicate on the plea in law alleging the irregularity of the investigation with the reference CMS 07/041;

2. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

3. Rejects the action brought by AN before the Civil Service Tribunal in in Case F-111/10;

4. Orders AN to bear her own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Commission relating both to the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and the present proceedings;

5. Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs relating both to the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Klaes v OHIM — Klaes Kunststoffe (Klaes)

(Case T-453/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Klaes - Prior Community figurative mark Klaes - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 107/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Horst Klaes GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany) (represented by: B. Dix, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH (Neuenrade, Germany) (represented initially by: J. Schneider, and subsequently by: S. Schweyer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 June 2013 (Case R 1206/2012-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Horst Klaes GmbH & Co. KG and Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Horst Klaes GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

3. Orders Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/20

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2015 — Siemag Tecberg Group v OHIM (Winder Controls)

(Case T-593/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Winder Controls - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(c) and (b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 135a of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Request for a hearing made prematurely in the application))

(2015/C 089/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Siemag Tecberg Group GmbH (Haiger, Germany) (represented by: T. Sommer, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1261/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Winder Controls as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Siemag Tecberg Group GmbH to bear its own expenses and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(1) OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/26

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Emsibeth v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Nael)

(Case T-596/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Nael - Earlier Community word mark Mc Neal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 155/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Emsibeth SpA (Verona, Italy) (represented by: A. Arpaia, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Dusseldorf, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 1663/2012-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg KG and Emsibeth SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Emsibeth SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/22

Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Bayer Intellectual Property v OHIM — Interhygiene (INTERFACE)

(Case T-227/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark INTERFACE - Earlier Community word mark Interfog - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 127/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (Monheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, A. Schifko and, subsequently, D. Walicka, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Interhygiene GmbH (Cuxhaven, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2013 (Case R 1688/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Interhygiene GmbH and Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/29

Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Petropars Iran and Others v Council

(Case T-433/13) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Plea of illegality - Right to conduct business - Right to property - Protection of public health, security and the environment - Precautionary principle - Proportionality - Rights of defence))

(2015/C 205/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Petropars Iran Co. (Kish Island, Iran); Petropars Oilfields Services Co. (Kish Island); Petropars Aria Kish Operation and Management Co. (Tehran, Iran); Petropars Resources Engineering Kish Co. (Tehran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, Z. Burbeza, Solicitors, R. Blakeley, G. Beck, Barristers, and M. Brindle QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for (i) annulment of Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 10) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 3) and (ii) a declaration that Article 20(1)(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and Article 23(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) are inapplicable.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the following, in so far as they concern Petropars Aria Kish Operation and Management Co. and Petropars Resources Engineering Kish Co.: — Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran; — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

2. Orders that the effects of Decision 2013/270 and Regulation No 522/2013 be maintained as regards Petropars Aria Kish Operation and Management Co. and Petropars Resources Engineering Kish Co. until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal, as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or, if an appeal is brought within that period, until the date of any dismissal of that appeal;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/33

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — Hitachi Chemical Europe and Others v ECHA

(Case T-135/13) (1)

((REACH - Identification of certain respiratory sensitisers as substances of very high concern - Equivalent level of concern - Action for annulment - Whether directly concerned - Admissibility - Rights of the defence - Proportionality))

(2015/C 198/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany); Polynt SpA, (Scanzorosciate, Italy); Sitre Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicants: REACh ChemAdvice GmbH (Kelkheim, Germany) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem); and New Japan Chemical (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: B. Koopman, M. Bulterman and C. Schillemans, acting as Agents); and European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Decision ED/169/2012 of the ECHA of 18 December 2012 concerning the inclusion of substances of very high concern in the list of candidate substances, in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), in so far as it concerns hexahydromethylphthalic anhydride (EC No 247-094-1), hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride (EC No 243-072-0), hexahydro-1-methylphthalic anhydride (EC No 256-356-4) and hexahydro-3-methylphthalic anhydride (EC No 260-566-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH, Polynt SpA and Sitre Srl to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Commission, REACh ChemAdvice GmbH and New Japan Chemical to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/16

Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2015 — McCullough v Cedefop

(Case T-496/13) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the award of public contracts and the conclusion of the ensuing contracts - Request seeking the production of documents in the context of criminal proceedings - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process))

(2015/C 245/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Colin Boyd McCullough (Thessalonica, Greece) (represented by: G. Matsos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (represented: initially by C. Lettmayr, acting as Agent, then by M. Fuchs, acting as Agent, and, initially, E. Petritsi, lawyer, then E. Petritsi and E. Roussou, then E. Roussou and P. Anestis, lawyers, and, lastly, P. Anestis)

Re:

Application for annulment of Cedefop’s decision of 15 July 2013 refusing access to the minutes of its Governing Board, those of its Bureau and those of the ‘Knowledge Management System’ Steering Group for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2005; for an order that Cedefop supply the requested documents and a request to authorise, pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of the Council of 10 February 1975 establishing a European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (OJ 1975 L 39, p. 1), and to Article 1 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, the Greek national authorities to enter the premises and buildings of Cedefop, in accordance with the applicable Greek legislation, to investigate, search and confiscate in those premises and buildings, in order to obtain the requested documents and to investigate possible offences.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Annuls the decision of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) of 15 July 2013 refusing access to the minutes of its Governing Board, of its Bureau and of the ‘Knowledge Management System’ Steering Group for the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2005 in so far as that decision refuses access to the minutes of the Governing Board and the Bureau, except as regards access to the surnames of the members of the Governing Board and the Bureau;

2) Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3) Declares that Cedefop shall bear its own costs and orders it to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Mr Colin Boyd McCullough;

4) Declares that Mr McCullough shall bear one quarter of his own costs.

(1) OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/10

Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Nutrexpa v OHIM — Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property (Cuétara Maria ORO)

(Case T-218/13) (1)

((Community mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Cuétara Maria ORO - Earlier Community and national figurative marks ORO - Partial refusal of registration - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 221/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Nutrexpa, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, M. Ferrándiz Avendaño and Y. Sastre Canet, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño and V. Melgar, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and G. Petrocchi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2013 (case R 2455/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl and Nutrexpa, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Disjoins Case T-218/13 from Case T-217/13 for the purpose of the judgment;

2. Dismisses the action;

3. Orders Nutrexpa, SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/44

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Cactus v OHIM — Del Rio Rodríguez (CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ)

(Case T-24/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ - Earlier Community word mark CACTUS and earlier figurative mark Cactus - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 302/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 October 2012 (Case R 2005/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cactus SA and Isabel Del Rio Rodríguez.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls point 1 of the operative part of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 October 2012 (Case R 2005/2011-2) in so far as it rejected the opposition on the grounds that ‘retailing of natural plants and flowers, grains; fresh fruits and vegetables’ services in Class 35 were not covered by the earlier marks;

2. Annuls point 2 of the operative part of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 October 2012 referred to above in so far as it annulled the part of the decision of the Opposition Division allowing the opposition based on ‘natural plants and flowers, grains’ in Class 31, and point 1 of the operative part of that decision, which rejected the opposition based on those goods;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders Cactus SA to pay one third of the costs incurred by the parties before the General Court and orders OHIM to pay two thirds of those costs.

(1) OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
Joined Cases T-186/13, T-190/13 and T-193/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — Netherlands and Others v Commission (State aid — Sale of land — Aid granted to Schouten-de Jong Bouwfonds by a public-private partnership set up by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg — Reduction in the sale price of land and retroactive exemption from payment of the fees payable for its exploitation and quality — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Concept of aid — Private-investor test — Assessment of all factors relevant to the transaction at issue and its context)

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — Netherlands and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-186/13, T-190/13 and T-193/13) ( 1 )

‛(State aid — Sale of land — Aid granted to Schouten-de Jong Bouwfonds by a public-private partnership set up by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg — Reduction in the sale price of land and retroactive exemption from payment of the fees payable for its exploitation and quality — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Concept of aid — Private-investor test — Assessment of all factors relevant to the transaction at issue and its context)’

Parties

Applicants: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and J. Langer, acting as Agents) (Case T-186/13); Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg (Netherlands) (represented by: A. de Groot and J.-K. Sluijs, lawyers) (Case T-190/13); Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling BV (Hoevelaken, Netherlands) and Schouten & De Jong Projectontwikkeling BV (Leidschendam, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and X. Reintjes, lawyers) (Case T-193/13)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.J. Loewenthal and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 87 of 23 January 2013 on State aid SA.24123 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by the Netherlands — Alleged sale of land below market price by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2013) 87 of 23 January 2013 on State aid SA.24123 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by the Netherlands — Alleged sale of land below market price by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg, Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling BV and Schouten & De Jong Projectontwikkeling BV.

( 1 ) OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.