ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

The incurring of non-contractual liability on behalf of the European Union 1. First plea in law, alleging unlawful conduct on the part of the Council (adoption and maintenance in force of a freezing of the applicant’s funds), duly held by judgment of 6 September 2013 in Export Development Bank of Iran v Council, T-4/11 and T-5/11, EU:T:2013:400. 2. Second plea in law, alleging that the unlawful conduct committed by the Council is a sufficiently serious breach of the rules of law intended to confer rights on individuals.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/64

Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Aldi v OHIM — Rouard (GOURMET)

(Case T-572/15)

(2015/C 389/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: C. Fürsen und N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pierre-André Rouard (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark with the word element ‘GOURMET’ — Application No 10 509 446

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 July 2015 in Case R 1985/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 63 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 20(7) of Regulation No 2868/95;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/31

Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Vince v OHIM (ELECTRIC HIGHWAY)

(Case T-315/15)

(2015/C 406/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dale Vince (Gloucestershire, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Longstaff, barrister)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ELECTRIC HIGHWAY’ — Application for registration No 010655819

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2015 in Case R 1442/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— allow the applicant’s application for the mark to proceed in full to registration;

— order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the mark in relation to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Incorrect interpretation of the relevant services in Class 39;

— The meaning of the mark asserted by the Board does not describe the services in any event;
—

annul the Commission’s decision of 17 July 2015 rejecting the applicant’s proposal in response to the call for proposals in the context of the Commission Implementing decision C(2014)1921 final of 26 March 2014 establishing a multi-Annual Work Programme 2014 for financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/33

Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Frame v OHIM — Bianca-Moden (BiancalunA)

(Case T-628/15)

(2016/C 007/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Frame Srl (San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy) (represented by: M. Borghese, R. Giordano, E. Montelione, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Ochtrup, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘BiancalunA’ — Application for registration No 11 246 204

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2015 in Case R 2720/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; and/or

— remit the case to OHIM so that the likelihood of confusion is properly analyzed taking into account the results of the proof of use filed by Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG;

— order OHIM to pay the costs both at the first instance and on the present proceedings;

— in the alternative, reform the contested decision so that the following goods in class 25 would be registered: underwear, pyjama’s, t-shirts, panties, undues.

Pleas in law

— Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 207/2009 in selecting just one earlier right;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/33

Action brought on 30 September 2015 — Azur Space Solar Power v OHIM (Representation of a solar cell)

(Case T-578/15)

(2015/C 414/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Azur Space Solar Power GmbH (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: J. Nicodemus, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of a figurative mark (Representation of a solar cell) — International registration No 1 201 973

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 July 2015 in Case R 2780/2014-4

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the refusal of OHIM;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
annul the Commission’s decision not to take action of 17 August 2015, notified on 24 August 2015,

on the creation of a European law on associations in the form of a no longer published draft law or of a version of that draft law amended under the authorised framework, which gives equal treatment to cross-border activities for altruistic aims and profit-making associations, in the alternative,

on the harmonisation of the national laws concerning associations and bodies with cross-border activities for altruistic aims;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the second sub-paragraph of Article 2(7)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1225/2009 (1) (the ‘Basic Regulation’) by identifying and selecting the United States of America (‘US’) as the appropriate analogue country in this case. This selection was based on an erroneous interpretation and application of the second sub-paragraph of Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation as well as on manifest errors of appraisal of the facts. Alternatively, the Commission manifestly misapplied Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation by failing to make certain required adjustments to normal value despite selecting the US as the analogue country.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/65

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Tchobanov v Parliament

(Case T-651/15)

(2016/C 048/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Atanas Tchobanov (Le Plessis Robinson, France) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8659 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all of the applicant’s arguments

(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).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/83

Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava/OHMI — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

(Case T-687/15)

(2016/C 048/91)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings the Board of Appeal before

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in red and white colours containing the word elements ‘Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl’ — Community trade mark No 11 406 816

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 2757/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 816 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705;

— order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/58

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Reuter v Parliament

(Case T-644/15)

(2016/C 048/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Delphine Reuter (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant(s): European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8627 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

(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).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/59

Action brought on 13/11/2015 — České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku v Parliament

(Case T-645/15)

(2016/C 048/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku o.p.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8682 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

(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).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
Second plea in law: infringement of the subsidiarity principle in the approval procedure for basic substances

The approval of sodium hydrogen carbonate as a basic substance infringes the subsidiarity principle in matter of plant protection since, by means of the applicant’s plant protection product VitiSan®, which contains the active ingredient potassium bicarbonate, an approved plant protection product with a similar active substance is available.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/49

Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v OHIM — Fédération Internationale des Logis (T)

(Case T-756/15)

(2016/C 059/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: H. Prange, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Federation Internationale des Logis (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘T’ — Application for registration No 11 623 022

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 August 2015 in Case R 2653/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision, and amend it to the effect that the opposition is rejected in its entirety;

— order of the defendant and, as the case may be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
—

annul the decision of the European Medicines Agency EMA/722323/2015 of 25 November 2015 to grant a third party access to the information about a medicinal product, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), in so far as the decision concerns commercially confidential information the release of which will infringe the applicant’s rights and in so far as the decision is prohibited by EU law;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 51(1) and 53(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) and of the principle of the equality of the parties in the proceedings, in that the period of two months laid down for lodging the defence, extended by ten days on account of distance, was calculated from the date of service of the notification that the application was in order, and not the date of service of the application, so that the defence lodged by the Committee of the Regions (CoR) was placed on the case file for the proceedings even though it had been lodged out of time; the CST then relied on that defence in order to dismiss the action by way of an order on the basis of Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure, and the appellant was thus deprived of the possibility of applying for judgment by default of the basis of Article 121 of the Rules of Procedure.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/22

Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Bergbräu v OHIM — Vilser Privatbrauerei (VILSER BERGBRÄU)

(Case T-697/15)

(2016/C 078/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Bergbräu GmbH & Co. KG (Uslar, Germany) (represented by: B. Reiter, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vilser Privatbrauerei GmbH (Vils, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘VILSER BERGBRÄU’ — Application for registration No 11 396 223

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2015 in Case R 2675/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in the opposition proceedings between Privatbrauerei Bergbräu GmbH & Co. KG and Vilser Privatbrauerei GmbH (Opposition No B 002169764);

— order OHIM to pay the costs;

— fix a date for the hearing in the event that the assessment of the facts of the case by the Court is not possible without a hearing.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/32

Action brought on 9 December 2015 — BASF v OHIM — Evonik Industries (DINCH)

(Case T-721/15)

(2016/C 068/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Evonik Industries AG (Marl, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘DINCH’ — Community trade mark No 2 563 856

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2015 in Case R 2080/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the contested decision to the effect that the appeal of the other party before the Board of Appeal be dismissed;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to prove and provide adequate reasoning that the applicant participated in a single and continuous infringement. — The applicant did not participate in the infringement alleged between 14 February 2008 and 9 April 2008. — The applicant did not participate in the infringement alleged between 10 April 2008 and 27 October 2008. — The applicant did not participate in an infringement on 28 October 2008. — There is insufficient evidence to show that the applicant was aware either of the cartel’s overall plan or of its general scope and essential characteristics. — Legal consequences of the Commission’s failure to prove the infringement alleged.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/32

Action brought on 29 December 2015 — EK/servicegroup v OHIM (FERLI)

(Case T-775/15)

(2016/C 078/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: EK/servicegroup eG (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: T. Müller und T. Müller, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘FERLI’ — Application for Registration No 13 850 235

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2015 in Case R 1233/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 28 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 9(4) of Regulation No 2868/95;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/53

Action brought on 11 January 2016 — Skechers USA France v OHIM — IM Production (Shoes)

(Case T-9/16)

(2016/C 098/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Skechers USA France (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Horn, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IM Production SAS (Paris)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design 1 221 584-0023

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2015 in Case R 2429/2013-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the rights of the defence and the principles of due process;