ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/26

Action brought on 28 March 2012 — Teva Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA

(Case T-140/12)

2012/C 165/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Teva Pharma BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Anderson, QC (Queen’s Counsel), K. Bacon, Barrister, G. Morgan and C. Drew, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the European Medicines Agency, contained in its letter of 24 January 2012, refusing to validate the applicants’ application for a marketing authorisation;

— Order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law, alleging that the refusal to validate their application for the authorisation of a generic version of an orphan medicinal product is contrary to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1) properly interpreted. In particular, it is contrary to the wording and effect of Article 8, as well as the policy underlying the said regulation and its travaux préparatoires, to exclude a generic version of an orphan medicinal product from the market for more than the ten year period stipulated in Article 8(1) of the said regulation. The applicants further allege that Article 8(3) permits an authorisation for a similar product to be granted during that 10 year period, by way of derogation from Article 8(1), in certain specified circumstances. Such authorisation should not, however, have the effect of extending the 10 year market exclusivity for the first orphan product.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/27

Action brought on 17 January 2012 — Alfacam and Others v Parliament

(Case T-21/12)

2012/C 89/45

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alfacam (Lint, Belgium); Via Storia (Schiltigheim, France); DB Video Productions (Aartselaar, Belgium); IEC (Rennes, France); and European Broadcast Partners (EUBROPA) (Aartselaar) (represented by: B. Pierart, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision adopted by the European Parliament on 18 November 2011 which awards to the Belgian company WATCH TV S.A. the contract EP/DGCOMM/AV/11/11 lot 1 Provision of video, radio and multimedia services — Services to be provided to the European Parliament in Brussels;

— accordingly, annul the decision adopted by the European Parliament which did not accept the tender of the first four applicants, acting within the framework of the consortium EUROPEAN BROACAST PARTNERS, that tender ranking second for the contract EP/DGCOMM/AV/11/11 lot 1 Provision of video, radio and multimedia services — Services to be provided to the European Parliament in Brussels;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a sole plea alleging infringement of Article 94 of the Financial Regulation, (1) in so far as the tenderer’s tender contained false declarations, so that that tenderer should have been excluded from the award of the contract.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/21

Action brought on 4 April 2012 — Pri v OHIM — Belgravia Investment Group (PRONOKAL)

(Case T-159/12)

2012/C 194/36

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Pri SA (Clémency, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. Marí Aguilar and F.J. Márquez Martín, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Belgravia Investment Group Ltd (Tortola, Islas Vírgenes Británicas)

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 20 December 2011 in Case R 311/2011-2 which dismissed the action brought by Pri SA and granted, in part, the registration of Community trade mark No 57644099 ‘PRONOKAL’ in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32, of which BELGRAVIA is the proprietor, and reject in its entirety the registration of (BELGRAVIA’s) Community trade mark No 5744099 ‘PRONOKAL’ in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 for infringement of the rights of Pri SA;

— order the defendant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 87(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Belgravia Investment Group Ltd

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘PRONOKAL’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Trade mark application No 5744099

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark and trade name ‘PRONOKAL’ for goods in Class 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection in part of the opposition and registration in part of the mark applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 109/21

Action brought on 8 February 2012 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)

(Case T-51/12)

2012/C 109/46

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Scooters India Ltd (Sarojininagar, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brandconcern BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2011 in case R 2312/2010-1, insofar as the applicant’s appeal against the revocation of the mark in respect of its registration for goods in class 12 was dismissed;

— Remit the case back to OHIM with a recommendation by the General Court that it find that the mark has been put to genuine use in relation to goods in class 12, namely ‘scooters, parts and fittings for vehicles and apparatus for locomotion by land’; and

— Order the Defendant to pay the applicant’s costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘LAMBRETTA’, for goods in classes 3, 12, 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark registration No 1495100

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partially revoked the CTM registration No 1495100

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division, dismissed the appeal for the remaining goods and dismissed the ancillary appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 50(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly decided to revoke the CTM for all goods in class 12 despite having held that there was evidence of genuine use of an identifiable sub-category of goods in class 12. Further, it erred in law in not applying the authority in the case of Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging (C-40/01) to the effect that use in relation to parts preserves a registration for the goods of which those parts are an integral part.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/22

Action brought on 10 April 2012 — Bolívar Cerezo v OHIM — Renovalia Energy (RENOVALIA)

(Case T-166/12)

2012/C 194/38

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Juan Bolívar Cerezo (Granada, Spain) (represented by: I.M. Barroso Sánchez-Lafuente, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Renovalia Energy, SA (Villarobledo, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 26 January 2012 of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case R 663/2011-1, resulting in the registration of Community trade mark No 8 631 814‘RENOVALIA’ for ‘Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs’ in Class 36;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘RENOVALIA’ for goods and services in Classes 11, 25, 35, 36, 37 and 41 — application for Community trade mark No 8 631 814

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Renovalia Energy, SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word marks ‘RENOVA ENERGY’ and ‘RENOVAENERGY’ and trade name ‘RENOVALIA’ for services in Class 36

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: There is a likelihood of confusion between the applicant’s priority Spanish mark No 2 715 975‘RENOVALIA’ and the opposing Spanish marks. An action for annulment is to be brought before the competent Spanish national court against the opposing Spanish marks, as a result of which those marks will no longer be able to be relied on to oppose the registration of the Community trade mark applied for
—

failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicant and/or included the applicant without an adequate legal basis for doing so;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 109/16

Action brought on 10 January 2012 — Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik v OHIM — Impexmetal (KFŁT KRAŚNIK)

(Case T-19/12)

2012/C 109/36

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik (Kraśnik, Poland) (represented by: J. Sieklucki, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Impexmetal S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 October 2011 (Case No R 2475/2010-1) refusing registration of KFŁT KRAŚNIK as a Community trade mark for goods in Class 7: machines and tool-making machines; rolling-element bearings and parts thereof (ball-bearings, rolling elements); spherical roller bearings and large-dimension roller bearings;

— order the defendant and IMPEXMETAL S.A. to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘KFŁT KRAŚNIK’ for goods in Class 7: machines and tool-making machines; rolling-element bearings and parts thereof (ball-bearings, rolling elements); spherical roller bearings and large-dimension roller bearings.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade marks No CTM-3415437 and CTM-3415379, for goods in Class 7, and the national (Polish) trade marks No PL-45550, PL-45826 and PL-112347, for goods in Class 7.

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) in so far as it was held that the trade marks are similar and that there was a likelihood of confusion, and breach of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law: infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) and of Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 (2) The applicant submits that, as evidenced by both of the regulations, the sole permissible ground for the levying of an administrative charge under Article 13(4) of Regulation No 340/2008 is to cover the costs incurred by the ECHA in verifying a registration in relationship to the size of an undertaking, and that this was not taken into account when determining the administrative charge in accordance with the decision of the ECHA administrative council (MB/29/2010). It further submits that it is not permissible to determine the administrative charge payable on the basis of the size of an undertaking, since this leads to a situation whereby larger undertakings bear the brunt of the costs involved in the evaluation of smaller undertakings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 109/24

Action brought on 9 February 2012 — ClientEarth v Council

(Case T-62/12)

2012/C 109/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer and P. van den Berg, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the defendant refusing (full) access to document 6865/09, containing a legal opinion of the defendant’s legal service concerning the legality of draft amendments to a European Commission proposal for the recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), pursuant to the said regulation; and

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

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 violation of Article 4(2) second indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the defendant did not show how disclosure of the document in question would undermine the protection of legal advice.

2. Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(3) first sub-paragraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the defendant did not show how disclosure of the document in question would seriously undermine the Council’s decision-making process.

3. Third plea in law, alleging violation of both Article 4(2) second indent and 4(3) first sub-paragraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the defendant failed to take account of the overriding public interest in disclosure of the document in question.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the principle of proportionality, as the Council did not properly consider whether fuller access to the document in question could have been provided.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 126/19

Action brought on 31 January 2012 — Uspaskich v Parliament

(Case T-84/12)

2012/C 126/38

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Uspaskich (Kėdainiai, Lithuania) (represented by: Aivaras Raišutis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision No P7_TA(2011)0541 of the European Parlimanent of 1 December 2011 concerning a request for defence of the applicant’s immunity;

— grant the applicant’s request of 11 April 2011 for renewal of consideration of the Principal State Prosecutor’s request that immunity be waived;

— protect the applicant’s immunity;

— award the applicant EUR 10 000 in damages;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The first plea is connected with infringement of the right to reconsideration of an earlier decision when new facts giving rise to a presumption of fumus persecutionis have come to light.

The second plea is connected with infringement of the right to impartial consideration of the request, the same person having been appointed rapporteur in the second case concerning defence of immunity.

The third plea is connected with infringement of rights of the defence and the right to have one’s affairs handled fairly.

The fourth plea is connected with infringement of subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, it being argued that the European Parliament adopted the contested decision on an incorrect legal basis and infringed subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of that protocol because it relied on a manifestly incorrect interpretation of the first and second paragraphs of Article 62 of the Lithuanian Constitution.

The fifth plea is connected with a manifestly incorrect assessment of fumus persecutionis. In the applicant’s submission, the European Parliament made an incorrect assessment as regards the binding nature of its previous decisions concerning immunity and as regards the concept of fumus, and it refused to consider the applicant’s arguments concerning fumus persecutionis on the basis of which he had to be recognised as a victim of political persecution.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/18

Action brought on 26 April 2012 — Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung v OHIM — Thermofilm Australia (HEATSTRIP)

(Case T-184/12)

2012/C 200/37

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung GmbH (Sauerlach/Lochhofen, Germany) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd (Springvale, Australia)

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 26 January 2012 in Case R 1956/2010-1;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HEATSTRIP’ for goods in Classes 9, 11 and 35 — application No 7 296 676

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the unregistered word mark ‘HEATSTRIP’, which is protected in Australia, Canada, the United States of America and the United Kingdom for inter alia heaters

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the application was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 75 and the second part of Article 76(1) of that regulation
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/12

Action brought on 14 May 2012 — Hübner v OHIM — Silesia Gerhard Hanke (Original silicea Kieselsäure-Gel)

(Case T-211/12)

2012/C 209/21

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Anton Hübner GmbH & Co. KG (Ehrenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Kirchgäßner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Silesia Gerhard Hanke GmbH & Co. KG (Neuss, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Amend the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 351/2011-1 as follows: The decision of the Opposition Division is annulled to the extent to which it has been the subject of the appeal, and the opposition is rejected in its entirety;

— Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred during the appeal procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Anton Hübner GmbH & Co. KG

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Original silicea Kieselsäure-Gel’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5 — application No 8 178 576

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Silesia Gerhard Hanke GmbH & Co. KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘Silesia’ for goods in Classes 2, 3, 5, 29, 30, 32 and 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/26

Action brought on 8 May 2012 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Holsten-Brauerei (H)

(Case T-193/12)

2012/C 194/44

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Holsten-Brauerei AG (Hamburg, 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 23 February 2012 in Case R 2340/2010-1 on the basis of incompatibility with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark, in so far as it upheld the opposition against the extension of protection of international registration No 984 017;

— order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the international registration which has effect in the European Union of a figurative mark representing an escutcheon with the letter ‘H’ for goods in Class 32 — No 984 017

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Holsten-Brauerei AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German figurative mark representing a knight on horseback with a shield bearing the letter ‘H’ for goods in Class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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