ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 7 April 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-167/10)

(2010/C 161/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athènes, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 27 January 2010 of the Secretariat General — SG.E.3/FM/psi — Ares (2010)43764- rejecting the request for a review submitted by the applicant in which it requested, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the review of the position taken by the Directorate-General for Informatics in its letter of 18 September 2009, following the applicant’s initial request, dated 14 August 2009, as concerns access to all requests for quotation (RfQs) pertaining to Lot 3A of ESP-DESIS;

— Annul the decision of 11 March 2010 of the Secretariat General — SG.E.3/FM/MIB/rc/psi — Ares(2010)131966- rejecting the request for a review submitted by the applicant in which it requested, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the review of the positions taken by the Directorate-General (DG) for Informatics, by the Publications Office of the European Union (OP, previously OPOCE) and by the Budget DG in their respective letters of 11 December 2009, following the applicant’s initial requests, dated 9 October 2009, as concerns access to all RfQs pertaining to all lots of the contracts ESP, ESP-DIMA and ESP-DESIS(dealt by Informatics DG), OPOCE’s Framework Contracts No 6011, 6102, 6103, 6020, 10042, 6121, 6031, 10030 and DG BUDGET’s Framework Contract No BUDG/O101;

— Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with its application; even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its claims, the applicant argues that the Commission infringed the regulation No 1049/2001 by not carrying out a concrete, individual examination of the documents referred to in the request for access in order to assess whether the exceptions relied on applied or whether a partial access could be granted. Moreover, the applicant contends that the justifications provided for by the Commission with regards to the protection of the economic policy of the EU, the protection of the commercial interests and the public security reasons should be rejected as wholly unfounded as the reasons relied on by the Commission are, in the applicant’s view, general and abstract in nature and do not show that the Commission undertook a specific individual examination of the content of the requested documents.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/28

Action brought on 18 May 2010 — Banco Santander v Commission

(Case T-227/10)

2010/C 195/43

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan, R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision inasmuch as it declares that Article 12(5) of the consolidated text of the Law on Corporation Tax (texto refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades, TRLIS) involves State aid elements;

— in the alternative, annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision inasmuch as it declares that Article 12(5) TRLIS involves State aid elements when it applies to acquisitions of shares which entail the acquisition of control;

— in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision inasmuch as it applies the recovery order to operations which occurred prior to the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the final decision which is the object of the present action; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision against which these proceedings are brought is the same as that contested in Cases T-219/10 Autogrill España v Commission; T-221/10 Iberdrola v Commission; and T-225/10 Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission.

The pleas in law and the principal arguments are similar to those relied on in those cases.

In particular, various errors of law in the legal classification of the measures as State aid, in the identification of the beneficiary of that measure and in the establishment of the deadline for recognising legitimate expectations are alleged. The last ground is raised by the applicant inasmuch as the contested decision recognises the existence of legitimate expectations, distinguishing, at the same time, between such operations carried out from the entry into force of the measure to the date of publication of the decision to initiate of the formal investigation procedure and those carried out subsequently.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/44

Action brought on 26 May 2010 — Vuitton Malletier v OHMI — Friis Group International (Representation of a lock device)

(Case T-237/10)

()

2010/C 209/68

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Friis Group International ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark)

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 24 February 2010 in case R 1590/2008-1, in so far as it declared the invalidity of Community trade mark No 3693116 for the goods in classes 9, 14 and 18;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

— Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division, should it become an intervening party in this case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A figurative mark representing a lock device for goods in classes 9, 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 3693116

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal partially

Pleas in law: The applicant advances two pleas in law in support of its application.

On the basis of its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that the provision of this article is applicable to the contested Community trade mark with respect to the goods in classes 9, 14 and 18. In particular, the Board of Appeal: (i) wrongly addressed the issue of the distinctiveness of the contested Community trade mark as if it were a mark consisting of the shape of the goods covered, and (ii) erroneously found lack of inherent distinctiveness.

By its second plea, the applicant considers that the contested decision violates Article 52(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that the provision of this article does not apply in the present case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/21

Action brought on 3 May 2010 — Strålfors Aktiebolag v OHMI (ID SOLUTIONS)

(Case T-211/10)

2010/C 195/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Strålfors AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M. Nielsen, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 January 2010 in case R 1111/2009-2;

— Approve for registration the Community trade mark application No 8235202 ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ for ‘labels and boxes made from paper and cardboard (not for identification of individuals); bookbinding material; adhesives for stationery or household purposes, artists’ materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’ in class 16; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ for goods in class 16 — Community trade mark application No 8235202

Decision of the examiner: Partially refused registration of the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and confirmed the contested decision

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the Community trade mark application No 8235202 ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ should be allowed for registration for goods in class 16 because ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ is distinctive for these goods and thus meets with the requirements according to Article 4 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/54

Action brought on 16 June 2010 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-266/10)

()

2010/C 221/86

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: Mrs Nuria Díaz Abdal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the European Commission’s decision of 11 May 2010 declaring the suspension of the interim payment application submitted by Spain on 10 December 2009 on the grounds stated in Part I of the legal reasoning set out in the originating application;

— Uphold the claim that the European Commission should pay interest on account of the delay in the actual payment of the interim sums applied for and improperly suspended;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the Commission’s decision to interrupt the payment deadline in respect of the interim payment application submitted by Spain on 10 December 2009. That interim payment application, for a total amount of EUR 6 509 540,26, relates to the Operational Programme for Community Assistance of the European Social Fund in the framework of the Objectives of Convergence for the Basque Country (CCI 2007ES052PO010).

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those already raised in Case T-263/10 Spain v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/40

Action brought on 18 May 2010 — Commission v EU Research Projects

(Case T-220/10)

()

2010/C 209/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Bambara, agent and C. Erkelens, lawyer)

Defendant: EU Research Projects Ltd (Hungerford, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

— Order the defendant to reimburse to the Commission the principal amount of EUR 102 039,32 plus the accrued interest of default to be calculated at a rate of 4,80 % from 28 December 2006 until the date of payment of the due amount; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission brought the present application, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, in order to seek reimbursement of the amount allegedly overpaid to the defendant, which is EUR 102 039,32, plus interest calculated at the rate of 4,80 % from the date on which the debt was due, i.e. 28 December 2006.

Under the European Community’s fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002), the Commission signed with, among others, the defendant a ‘contract for research and technological development projects’, identified by number IST-2001-34850. The sum claimed by the applicant under the said contract is equivalent to the difference between the advance payment paid to the defendant and the total eligible costs accepted by the applicant, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the contract, as a consequence of the defendant’s request of withdrawal from the project and further to its non-compliance with the relevant contractual obligations.

In support of its application, the Commission raises a single plea in law: the Commission contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations by failing to reimburse to the Commission the difference between the Commission’s financial contribution due to defendant and the total amount of advance funding already received by it. The financial contribution due to the defendant is less than the total amount paid by the applicant by means of an advance payment. Furthermore, under Belgian law, which the law applicable to the contract, what has been paid without it being due (undue payment) can be claimed back. The Commission contends therefore that the defendant is liable for the sum due.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/39

Action brought on 5 May 2010 — Condé v Council

(Case T-210/10)

()

2010/C 234/72

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mamoudou Condé (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea (1) in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen under Article 6 of that regulation.

In support of his action, the applicant raises three pleas in law alleging:

— an infringement of the right to an effective judicial remedy since he was not informed of the rights of appeal available to him;

— an infringement of his rights of defence since he was not informed of the evidence against him;

— an infringement of the principle of proportionality and of his right to property.

(1) OJ 2009 L 346, p. 26.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/46

Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (ANEURYSMCONTROL)

(Case T-280/10)

()

2010/C 234/82

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Milux Holding S.A. (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2010 in case R 1432/2009-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ANEURYSMCONTROL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the principle of non-discrimination to the facts of this case; in the alternative, infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/37

Action brought on 9 July 2010 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission

(Case T-300/10)

()

2010/C 246/64

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (Rosbach, Germany) (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul the Commission’s decision of 29 April 2010 in so far as the applicant is thereby refused access to documents which have not been released or which have been the subject of only partial release;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges the Commission’s decision of 29 April 2010, by which its second application for access to undisclosed documents relating to the LIEN 97-2011 contract was refused in part.

In support of its action the applicant submits, in essence, that the Commission was not entitled to deny the applicant access to the documents applied for on the basis of the exceptions laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) concerning protection of the decision-making process and protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual. The applicant further submits in this connection that there is an overriding public interest in release of the documents which have not yet been made available.

(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 274/27

Action brought on 12 August 2010 — Yoshida Metal Industry/OHMI — Pi-Design (surface covered with black circles)

(Case T-331/10)

()

2010/C 274/42

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Yoshida Metal Industry Co., Ltd (Niigata, Japan) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pi-Design AG, (Triengen, Switzerland)

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 20 May 2010 in case R 1235/2008-1;

— Confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of 21 July 2008 regarding Community trade mark application No 1371244;

— Confirm the validity of Community trade mark registration No 1371244;

— Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark representing a surface covered with black circles for goods in classes 8 and 21 — Community trade mark registration No 1371244

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the Community trade mark registration invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(e)(ii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that the provisions of these Articles are applicable to the contested Community trade mark.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 September 2010 — Amor v OHIM — Jablonex Group (AMORIKE)

(Case T-371/10)

()

(2010/C 288/112)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Amor GmbH (Obertshausen, Germany) (represented by: M. Hartmann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jablonex Group a.s. (Jablonec nad Nisou, Czech Republic)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 June 2010 in Case R 619/2009-2;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Jablonex Group a.s.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AMORIKE’ for goods and services in Classes 14, 25 and 26.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Amor GmbH.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Internationally-registered word mark ‘AMOR’ for goods in Class 14; Community figurative marks containing the word element ‘Amor’ for goods in Classes 14 and 18; national figurative marks containing the word element ‘Amor’ for goods in Class 25, and national figurative marks which are orange in colour and which contain the word element ‘Amor’ for goods in Classes 9, 14, 18, 35 and 42.

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) in that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

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

Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Abbott Laboratories v OHIM (RESTORE)

(Case T-363/10)

()

(2010/C 288/107)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Abbott Laboratories (Abbott Park, Illinois, United States of America) (represented by M. Kinkeldey, S. Schäffler and J. Springer, lawyers)

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

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 9 June 2010 in Case R 1560/2009-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘RESTORE’ for goods in Class 10

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

Infringement of the right to be heard as the Board of Appeal referred in its decision to evidence which was not adduced by the applicant;

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as the mark applied for is not a term which directly describes the goods covered by the application;

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 as the mark applied for has the required distinctive character.

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