ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/14

Action brought on 14 January 2014 — José Manuel Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (Representation of a seated figure)

(Case T-28/14)

2014/C 78/28

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA (Santa Perpètua de Mogoda, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel (Tarifa, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul OHIM’s decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Registered Community design No 426 895-002 for ‘T-shirts (Ornamentation for); Caps (Ornamentation for); Stickers (Ornamentation for); Printed matter, including advertising materials (Ornamentation for)’.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel

Mark or design of the applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Community figurative mark No 1 312 651, for goods in Classes 25, 28, and 32 of the Nice Classification.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld and design declared invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed in part

Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Regulation No 6/2002
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/41

Action brought on 8 January 2014 — U4U and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-17/14)

2014/C 112/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Union pour l’Unité (U4U) (Brussels, Belgium); Unité & Solidarité — Hors Union (USHU) (Brussels); Regroupement Syndical (RS) (Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Belgium); and Georges Vlandas (Brussels) (represented by: F. Krenc, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

Form of order sought

The parties claim that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well founded;

— accordingly, annul Regulation No 10223/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013, amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union in so far as it: (1) amends Annex X to the Staff Regulations (Art.1, No 70); (2) amends Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and Annex 1 thereto, and adds Section 5 to Annex XIII (Art. 1, No 27, No 61 and No 73(k)).

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The first three pleas in law concern the amendment of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).

1. The first plea alleging an infringement of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations, Articles 12, 27 and 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 11 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’), in particular by the failure to consult the Committee on the reform of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.

2. Second plea alleging infringement of Articles 12, 27 and 28 of the Charter and Article 11 of the ECHR by the lack of information and genuine and appropriate consultation of the unions, officials and other servants as regards the reform of Annex X.

3. Third plea in law alleging a breach of the principles of sound legislation and in particular the duty of thoroughness and the duty to state reasons The last three pleas concern the amendment of Article 45 and Annex I to the Staff Regulations, and the addition of Section 5 in Annex XIII thereof.

4. Fourth plea alleging an infringement of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations, Articles 12, 27 and 28 of the Charter and Article 11 of the ECHR, in particular the lack of consultation of the Staff Regulations Committee concerning the reform of AD careers

5. Fifth plea alleging an infringement of Articles 12, 27 and 28 of the Charter and Article 11 of the ECHR by the lack of information and genuine and adequate consultation of the unions, officials and other servants regarding the reform of AD careers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/48

Action brought on 27 January 2014 — UAB MELT WATER v OHIM (MELT WATER Original)

(Case T-69/14)

2014/C 112/62

Language in which the application was lodged: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Research and Production Company MELT WATER UAB (Klaipėda, Lithuania) (represented by V. Viešūnaitė, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2013 in Case R 494/2013-5 and order OHIM to register, as a Community trade mark, the mark ‘MELT WATER Original’ in respect of which the applicant, Research and Production Company MELT WATER UAB, has sought registration (application No 01 078 2068);

— award costs in favour of the applicant, Research and Production Company MELT WATER UAB;

— order the defendant, OHIM, to produce the file concerning the action relating to that application for registration of a Community trade mark (application No 010 782 068).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

Community trade mark in respect of which registration is sought: a light-blue figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MELT WATER Original’, for goods in Class 32 — application No 010 782 068 for registration of a Community trade mark.

Decision of the Examiner: application rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Article 7(1)(c) and 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, together with the related case-law of the European Union Courts.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/22

Action brought on 13 January 2014 — Heidrick & Struggles International v OHIM (THE LEADERSHIP COMPANY)

(Case T-43/14)

2014/C 129/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc. (Chicago, United States) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

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 10 October 2013 given in Case R 338/2013-2;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘THE LEADERSHIP COMPANY’ for services in Classes 35 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 11 031 457

Decision of the Examiner: Refused to register the trade mark applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(2) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/55

Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Molinos Río de la Plata v Council

(Case T-112/14)

2014/C 112/72

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Molinos Río de la Plata SA (Buenos Aires, Argentine) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

— Order the defendant to bear 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 that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/48

Action brought on 7 February 2014 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)

(Case T-85/14)

2014/C 135/62

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio 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 12 November 2013 given in Case R 1106/2012-2.

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 7, 9 and 11 — Community trade mark application No 9 768 061

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 229 048 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DIN’ for goods in Classes 1 to 34 and an earlier non-registered word mark ‘DIN’ in Germany

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Granted the appeal, annulled the contested decision and rejected the contested Community trade mark application in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/46

Action brought on 4 February 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of grey pattern)

(Case T-77/14)

2014/C 135/58

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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 24 October 2013 given in Case R 704/2013-1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark representing a device of grey pattern for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 16, 25, 35-39, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 11 388 386

Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/47

Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Energy Brands v OHIM — Smart Wines (SMARTWATER)

(Case T-81/14)

2014/C 135/60

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Energy Brands, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: D. Stone and R. Allos, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Smart Wines GmbH (Cologne, 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 19 November 2013 given in Case R 903/2013-2;

— Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SMARTWATER’ for goods in Classes 30, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 8 400 194

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: Earlier Community trade mark registration No 5 853 601 for the word mark ‘SMART WINES’ for goods in Classes 30 and 33

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(a)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/28

Action brought on 17 March 2014 — Ferring v OHIM — Kora Corporation (Koragel)

(Case T-169/14)

2014/C 151/35

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kora Corporation Ltd (Swords, Ireland)

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 13 January 2014 given in Case R 721/2013-4;

— Order the defendant and the intervener, should it intervene, to pay 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 ‘Koragel’ for goods in Class 5 –Community trade mark application No 10 490 027

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘CHORAGON’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark registration No 8 695 314

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) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/35

Action brought on 27 January 2014 — BR IP Holder v OHIM — Greyleg Investments (HOKEY POKEY)

(Case T-62/14)

2014/C 142/46

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: BR IP Holder LLC (Canton, United States) (represented by: F. Traub, lawyer, and C. Rohsler, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Greyleg Investments Ltd (Baltonsborough, United Kingdom)

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 22 November 2013 given in Case R 1091/2012-4;

— Order the defendant to pay 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 ‘HOKEY POKEY’ for ‘confectionery’ in Class 30 — Community trade mark application No 9 275 678

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Earlier, non-registered trade mark ‘HOKEY POKEY’ claimed to be in use in the United Kingdom for ‘confectionery, namely ice cream’

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/35

Action brought on 24 March 2014 — 100% Capri Italia v OHIM — Cantoni ITC (100% Capri)

(Case T-198/14)

2014/C 159/48

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: 100% Capri Italia Srl (Capri, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani, G. Ghisletti and F. Braga, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cantoni ITC SpA (Milan, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation n. 207/2009; and, accordingly,

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 January 2014 in Case R 2122/2012-2;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with the word elements ‘100% Capri’ for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cantoni ITC SpA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘CAPRI’ and national word mark ‘CAPRI’ for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal in part

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

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 907 and 909 of Regulation No 2454/93 (1) and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 41 thereof concerning the right to good administration. — By the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2013 in Case T-324/10 Firma Léon Van Parys v Commission, Commission Decision C(2010) 2858 was annulled ex tunc; the nine-month time-limit for dealing with the case having already expired, the Commission had therefore ceased to be in a position to decide on the application for remission. — At the very least, the Commission has exceeded its powers in so far as its actions go beyond what is required in order to bring its — partly annulled — decision in line with the General Court’s judgment of 19 March 2013 in Case T-324/10. The Commission has thereby infringed the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU in relation to its power to take measures to comply with judgments of the Court.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/34

Action brought on 14 March 2014 — José Freitas v Council and Parliament

(Case T-185/14)

2014/C 184/56

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: José Freitas (Porto, Portugal) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application to be admissible and well-founded;

— annul Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’), published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 28 December 2013 (OJ L 354, p. 132);

— order the defendants to pay 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 infringement of Article 49 TFEU, in so far as the profession of notary falls within the scope of application of Article 49 TFEU regarding freedom of establishment and does not fall within the exercise of official authority within the meaning of Article 51 TFEU. The profession of notary cannot therefore be excluded from the scope of application of Directive 2005/36/EC. (1)

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, the notaries appointed by official act of the public authorities being excluded in a general and absolute manner from the scope of application of Directive 2005/36/EC.

(1) Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).
Infringement comprising an erroneous legal classification of the facts and evidence, resulting in a breach by the contested decision of Article 107(1) TFEU by reason of the finding that, in this case, the conditions for recognition of the actions of the applicants as satisfying the private investor test were not met and it was not established that the investment project would have been carried out by a private investor, with the consequence that the Gdynia-Kosakowo investment was dependent on unauthorised public aid.
—

Breach of the following procedural provisions: of Article 107(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, through the improper conduct of the private investor test; of Article 7(5), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 by reason of the mistaken determination of the amount of aid to be reimbursed, to which was also added expenditure for security and infrastructure; and also of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU because of the lack of proper reasoning for the contested decision, which lacks elements essential to enable its grounds to be determined.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging (a) a manifest error of assessment that there is a link between the applicant's assets in the EU and the subject of the judicial investigation in Tunisia, (b) a manifest error of assessment in claiming that the operative parts of the contested acts justify the retention of the Applicant's name on the list of persons whose assets are to be frozen, and (c) a manifest error in the assessment of the factual basis on which the defendant purports to justify the contested acts.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/36

Action brought on 22 April 2014 — Promarc Technics v OHIM — PIS (Part of doors)

(Case T-251/14)

2014/C 212/47

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Promarc Technics s.c. Tomasz Pokrywa, Rafał Natorski (Zabierzów, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Petrycki i Sorys sp.j. (PIS) (Jasło, Poland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 January 2014 in Case R 1464/2012-3;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design No 1608365-0001

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds of the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the registered Community design lacks novelty and individual character

Decision of the Invalidity Division: Design declared invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4 to 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs.