ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 339/25

Action brought on 28 July 2014 — BrandGroup v OHIM — Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele (SPEZOOMIX)

(Case T-557/14)

2014/C 339/30

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: BrandGroup GmbH (Bechtsrieth, Germany) (represented by: T. Raible, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele KG (Augsburg, 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 15 May 2014 in Case R 941/2013-1;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and the Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele KG to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: BrandGroup GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SPEZOOMIX’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 9 9 13 617

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International and Community word marks ‘Spezi’, international and Community figurative marks containing the word ‘Spezi’, and the national word mark ‘Ein Spezi muß dabei sein’ for goods in Class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and rejection in its entirety of the mark applied for

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 78(5) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/26

Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)

(Case T-621/14)

2014/C 351/33

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda (Luanda, Angola) (represented by: A. Oliveira, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV (Berlin, Germany)

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 4 June 2014 given in Case R 1312/2013-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DINKOOL’ for goods in Classes 1-3, 5-7, 12, 16, 20 and 21 — Community trade mark application No 1 0465 946

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: International trade mark registration No 2 29 048 and earlier non-registered sign in Germany ‘DIN’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the contested CTM application in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/25

Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of a Mexican taco)

(Case T-618/14)

2014/C 351/32

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, 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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 June 2010 in Case R 2449/2013-2 on the grounds of illegality and failure to observe the applicable legislative provisions relating to the Community trade mark, give judgment in accordance with the form of order sought set out in this application to the effect that the three-dimensional mark applied for is sufficiently inherently distinctive, grant this application and order that the three-dimensional Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 48 051 be entered into the register of trade marks in Class 30 of the International Classification as it is consistent with the requirements of Community trade mark law;

— once this action has been allowed and the aforementioned mark entered into the register, order the person opposing the claim to pay the costs of these proceedings and to order OHIM to repay the appeal fee.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a Mexican taco for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark application No 11 748 051

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/17

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-594/14)

2014/C 361/24

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

— in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 5 00 000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant;

— in the alternative, order that an expert be appointed to establish the extent of the damage suffered by the applicant;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/20

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

(Case T-600/14)

2014/C 361/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d’Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare its action to be both admissible and well founded;

— consequently, order the European Union to pay full compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant, in the amount of EUR 48 8 8 29 000;

— in the alternative, order the appointment of an expert to establish the extent of the damage suffered by the applicant;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 380/19

Action brought on 2 September 2014 — Infusion Brands v OHMI (DUALSAW)

(Case T-647/14)

2014/C 380/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Infusion Brands, Inc. (Myer Lake Circle Clearwater, United States) (represented by: K. Piepenbrink, 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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 July 2014 given in Case R 397/2014-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in white, black and green containing the verbal element ‘DUALSAW’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 8 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 2 0 27 561

Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/26

Action brought on 20 August 2014 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (FORTIFY)

(Case T-628/14)

2014/C 361/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (Dallas, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 June 2014 given in Case R 249/2014-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FORTIFY’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No. 1 1 7 71 037

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (2) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 388/20

Action brought on 27 August 2014 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-636/14)

2014/C 388/24

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato, G. Palmieri, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the vacancy notice for the post of Director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (Luxembourg), function group AD, grade 14, (COM/2014/10356), published in the Official Journal of the European Union C 185 A of 17 June 2014;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the abovementioned vacancy notice, in so far as applicants are required to apply in English, French or German.

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 TFEU and the fourth paragraph of Article 24 TFEU; of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; of Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation 1/58; and of Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations (applicable by analogy to temporary staff and referred to in the contested notice). — The applicant claims in this regard that, through the reference to the Commission’s website which set out that binding provision, the notice required applicants compulsorily to submit their CV and motivation letter in English, French or German, rather than in any one of the languages of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 380/20

Action brought on 2 September 2014 — Infusion Brands v OHIM (DUALTOOLS)

(Case T-648/14)

2014/C 380/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Infusion Brands, Inc. (Myer Lake Circle Clearwater, United States) (represented by: K. Piepenbrink, 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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 July 2014 given in Case R 398/2014-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in white, black and green containing the verbal element ‘DUALTOOLS’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 8 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 2 0 27 496

Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
—

The Commission with the Guidelines further infringes the principle of proportionality, as the Guidelines propose instruments not suitable for the declared objectives of promoting the EU’s renewable energy objectives while reducing distortive effects. Neither are those instruments proportionate, while they do create excessive burdens both on Member States almost all of which will have to reform their renewable energy support schemes, and on individuals, who will have to take on the additional administrative burden caused by the participation in the competitive bidding procedures.
1.

The first plea in law is based on the infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, and Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1) The applicant maintains that the Commission decided by the contested act that the sale notified by the Hellenic Republic of assets of ΝΕW LARKO described in the decision will not lead to economic continuity between it and the owner(s) of the assets which will be sold. First, the Commission erroneously considers that the assets being sold represent only a part of the activities of ΝΕW LARKO, whereas the truth is that those assets represent the main part of its activities and that those which remain in the possession of the transferor are economically worthless for the most part and that it is impossible for any productive use to be made of them in isolation. Thus, the plant at Larymna (for sale in connection with the proposed privatisation) is its principal asset, mainly because it is there that all the ore extracted at the sites of ΝΕW LARKO in the whole of Greece is brought and there alone that smelting takes place. Second, the contested decision also erred in accepting the information that the assets which will be auctioned will not belong to ΝΕW LARKO but to the Greek State, whereas the truth is that the ore-smelting plant at Larymna, both the general ore-smelting installations and the smelter support installations, will never fall into the ownership of the Greek State but will remain even after the possible expiry of the contract for the lease of mining rights in the ownership of ΝΕW LARKO, because those rights are entirely owned by it. As a direct consequence of the above consideration the business of ΝΕW LARKO will be continued by the new entity/purchaser, so that it is inadmissible that the latter should be relieved of the obligation to pay to the applicant the amounts which the transferring ΝΕW LARKO owes to it.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law insofar as it found that the applicant had committed an infringement by object of Article 101 TFEU. The applicant submits that: — the Commission’s finding is unlawful because it applies a wholly novel and incorrect legal test. In particular, it is dependent upon the payment of a ‘significant inducement’, which according to the applicant is not reflected in the existing case-law and is wrong as a matter of law; — the Commission’s approach fails to recognise and give effect not just to the objectives of competition law, but also those of patent law and modern civil procedure. According to the applicant, the Commission should have assessed the question of restriction by object by reference to the ancillary restraints doctrine and/or by reference to the principles recognised in the Wouters judgment. Its failure to do so was wrong in law.
—

the Commission did not respect the principle of proportionality when ordering the applicant to pay late-payment interest on a fine, the sum of which has never been clear and which had been annulled in its totality, without the Commission taking a new final decision as to the amount of fine to be paid by the applicant. The purposes of the rules that give the Commission the right to claim late payment interest in other cases are not fulfilled in the present case. In the alternative, it is at least disproportionate to impose an interest rate of a punitive character, since the applicant has been prevented from avoiding that cost as a result of the Commission’s own conduct.
—

In determining the hourly cost of the contracted service providers, the Commission also acted in breach of Article II.19.1(b) to the grant contracts, under which the eligible costs must be determined in accordance with the general [accounting] standards in force when the contract was signed. In particular, the reference made by the Commission to the parameters specified for the ‘Marie Curie’ programmes is wholly inappropriate and arbitrary, since those parameters relate to rules which did not come into force until 2011 and which, in addition, apply exclusively to the FP7 (the Seventh EU Framework Programme), and which, in consequence, were not in force, as such, at the material time for the purposes of the present dispute.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfil the criterion for listing, namely that the person concerned was ‘responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria’, or a person ‘benefiting from or supporting the regime’, or a person associated with any such person. The Council failed to establish that the reasons relied on against the entity concerned were well founded.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 November 2014 — Chung-Yuan Chang v OHIM — BSH (AROMA)

(Case T-749/14)

(2015/C 016/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Peter Chung-Yuan Chang (San Diego, United States) (represented by: A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘AROMA’ — International registration designating the European Union No 924 502

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2014 in Case R 1887/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, consequently rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH, and declare the grant of Community trade mark EM No 924502 to be valid for goods falling within Class 7 ‘Electric kitchen machines and utensils, namely blenders, juice extractors, pasta-making machines for home use, food processors and whisks’ and Class 11 ‘Electrical cooking appliances, namely convection ovens for home use, bread-making machines, steam cookers for home use, grills, deep-fat fryers, sandwich toasters, waffle-making machines, table-mounted stoves for soups, rice cookers, machines for freeze-drying foods, frying pans, pressure cookers, hotplates, roasting machines, roasting spits, ice-cream making machines and slow cookers’ whose registration is sought; and

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of contractual obligations, the obligation to state reasons, the rights of the defence, the general principle of the duty of care and of proportionality, misuse of powers, breach of the obligation to act dutifully and in good faith in the performance of the contracts and breach of the terms of the contract governing the subsidy contract entered into and, more specifically, breach of Article II.14 of the ‘grant agreement’, the general principles governing audits, the principle of the performance in good faith of the contracts and the prohibition on the unfair application of contractual terms and of the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the general rules on the interpretation of contracts. The applicants claim that the defendants assume the right to interpret the contract in question as they see fit and without complying with the express provisions laying down the obligation to subsidise the services actually rendered and the eligible costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/39

Action brought on 10 October 2014 — IPSO v ECB

(Case T-713/14)

(2014/C 431/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: International and European Public Services Organisation in the Federal Republic of Germany (IPSO) (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul the ECB Executive Board’s decision of 30 May 2014, pronounced on 16 July 2014, to fix at two years the maximum length of certain contracts for temporary staff performing secretarial and administrative roles;

— Order the defendant to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage estimated ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000;

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging, on the one hand, a breach of the applicant’s right to information and consultation as guaranteed by Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Directive 2002/14 (1) and defined and implemented by the framework agreement on recognition, sharing of information and consultation and the ad hoc agreement of January 2014 establishing the working group on temporary staff, concluded between the ECB and IPSO, and, on the other hand, a breach of those agreements.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to good administration and, in particular, of the right to be heard and of the right of access to information, procedural rights guaranteed by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29).