ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/12

Action brought on 10 August 2012 — MOL v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (MOL Blue Card)

(Case T-367/12)

2012/C 319/23

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: K. Szamosi, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Bilbao, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 May 2012 in case R 2532/2011-2, and render the registration of the contested trade mark application as a Community trade mark with regard to all goods and services concerned; and

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MOL Blue Card’ for among other goods and services in classes 35 and 36 — Community trade mark application No W01030440

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: Community trade mark registration No 8549172 of the word mark ‘BLUE’ for among others services in class 35; Community trade mark registration No 2065621 of the word mark ‘BLUE BBVA’ for among others services in classes 35 and 36; Community trade mark registration No 2277291 of the word mark ‘TARJETA BLUE BBVA’ for among others services in class 36

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and refused the application for all services in classes 35 and 36

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 September 2012 — Cosma Moden v OHIM — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (COSMA)

(Case T-399/12)

(2012/C 331/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cosma Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Emsdetten, Germany) (represented by: J. Meyer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG (Rottendorf, Germany)

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 4 July 2012 in Case R 2010/2010-4 in respect of Community trade mark application No 6 593 479 and alter that decision to the effect that the appeal is well founded and that the opposition must as a result also be rejected as to the remainder;

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘COSMA’ for goods and services in Classes 24, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 6 593 479

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark including the word element ‘comma’ and the national word mark ‘comma’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 6, 9, 14, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 August 2012 — Singer v OHIM — Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zártkörüen Müködö (CORDIO)

(Case T-388/12)

(2012/C 331/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Daniela Singer (Obertrubach, Germany) (represented by: B. Korom, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zártkörüen Müködö rt (Budapest, Hungary)

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 July 2012 in Case R 1842/2011-2

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CORDIO’ for services in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 115 262

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zártkörüen Müködö rt

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘CORDIA’ for services in Classes 36, 37 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: There is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.
Third plea in law: Legally incorrect interpretation and application of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001

With the third plea, the applicant submits that the Commission’s interpretation and application of the exceptions set out in the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 were legally incorrect. In the applicant’s view, the Commission failed to take account of the ‘rule-exception’ relationship and proceeded on the basis of a much too broad understanding of ‘protection of investigations’ and of the term ‘commercial interests’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 373/11

Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Global Steel Wire v Commission

(Case T-438/12)

2012/C 373/17

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Global Steel Wire, SA (Cerdanyola del Vallés, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 July 2012 in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel;

— require the Commission to provide, in accordance with Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the documents, calculations and other matters of law and/or fact that served as the basis to grant the requests for inability to pay of Proderac, CB, ITAS, OriMartin and Siderúrgica Latina Martin and/or to accept the reduction in the fine of AreclorMittal;

— in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the decision of the European Commission rejecting the request submitted by the applicant to the Commission for inability to pay and/or deferred payment with an exemption from providing a bank guarantee.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging errors of fact and of law in the assessment of the applicant’s ability to pay in order to discharge the fine.

2. Second plea in law, alleging errors of fact and of law in the assessment of the ability to pay of the applicant’s shareholders.

3. Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination in so far as, with regard to other companies in the sector, the Commission recognised that they were unable to pay, reduced the amount of the fine or exempted them from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/39

Action brought on 28 September 2012 — Steiff v OHIM (Metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy)

(Case T-433/12)

2012/C 366/78

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Margarete Steiff GmbH (Giengen an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by D. Fissl, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 July 2012 in Case R 1693/2011-1;

— Annul OHIM’s rejection of Community trade mark application No 9 439 613;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the positional mark with which protection is claimed for a gleaming or matt, round metal button fastened to the middle section of the ear of a soft toy for goods in Class 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 439 613

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/51

Action brought on 22 October 2012 — Sothys Auriac v OHIM — Grand Hotel Primavera (BEAUTY GARDEN)

(Case T-470/12)

2013/C 26/103

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Sothys Auriac (Auriac, France) (represented by: A. Berthet, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grand Hotel Primavera SA (Borgo Maggiore, Saint-Martin)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action to be admissible;

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 July 2012 on Case R 11419/2011-1;

— 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: BEAUTY GARDEN for goods in Classes 3, 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark No 3 456 134

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Grand Hotel Primavera SA

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘BEAUTY GARDEN’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal rejected in part and decision of the Cancellation Division annulled in part and revised by the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 76(1) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/7

Action brought on 15 October 2012 — Générations futures v Commission

(Case T-458/12)

2012/C 389/11

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mouvement pour les droits et le respect des générations futures (Ons-en-Bray, France) (represented by: A. Faro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the decision of the Director-General for Health and Consumers of 16 August 2012 (ARES 977 175) refusing the application for review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2012 of 25 April 2012 approving the active substance metam, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, made on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation No 1367/2006.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a French association approved for environmental protection activities, seeks, on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation No 1367/2006, the review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2012 of 25 April 2012 approving the active substance metam. (1) By decision of 16 August 2012, the Commission refused to carry out that review on the ground that the implementing regulation of which review is sought does not constitute an administrative act within the meaning of Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006. (2)

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a certain number of pleas in law.

The applicant submits, firstly, that the implementing regulation is the response to an individual application made by a third party undertaking and, secondly, that the restriction to administrative acts laid down in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) of that regulation, is not compatible with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. (3)

The applicant also submits that its application for review is well founded, since (i) the applicable procedure was not followed, (ii) the file submitted for evaluation is insufficient and (iii) the approval criteria were not applied.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2012 of 25 April 2012 approving the active substance metam, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2012 L 114, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

(3) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/42

Action brought on 12 November 2012 — CITEB and Belgo-Metal v Parliament

(Case T-488/12)

2013/C 9/76

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Cit Blaton SA (CITEB) (Schaerbeek, Belgium) and Belgo-Metal (Wetteren, Belgium) (represented by: R. Simar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the action for annulment admissible;

— annul the decision by which the European Parliament’s Directorate General for Infrastructure and Logistics, on 7 September 2012, rejected the applicants’ tender and awarded the contract to another tenderer, a decision about which the applicants were informed by letters of 7 and 18 September 2012;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 89(1) and (2) and 92 of the Financial Regulation, (1) of Article 135(1) and (5) of the Implementing Regulation (2) and Article 49 of Directive 2004/18, (3) and the principles of competition, transparency, equal treatment, proportionality and diligence, in so far as the contested decision does not contain the report compiled by the evaluation committee constituting the reason for the decision, and thus does not allow the applicants to check that the tender accepted is lawful.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and an infringement of the obligation to state adequate reasons for decisions, of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation, of the contract documents and of the provisions governing the award of that contract, detailed and adequate reasons not being stated for the contested decision in so far as it does not include the information from the evaluation committee’s report.

(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).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1)

(3) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/42

Action brought on 3 November 2012 — Golam v OHIM — Pentafarma (METABOL)

(Case T-486/12)

2013/C 9/75

Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N.Trovas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pentafarma-Sociedade Tecnico-Medicinal, SA (Prior Velho, Portugal)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 July 2012 in Case R 1901/2011-1;

— reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety;

— order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sofia Golam

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘METABOL’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 16 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 8885287

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Pentafarma-Sociedade Tecnico-Medicinal, SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Portuguese word mark ‘METABOL-MG’ which has been registered under No 241841, for goods in Class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: decision of the Opposition Division annulled in part

Pleas in law: infringement of Articles 8(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009
—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in case R 1014/2012-4 of 12 September 2012 and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/58

Action brought on 16 November 2012 — Koinοpraxia Τouristiki Loutrakiou v Commission

(Case T-498/12)

2013/C 26/118

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Koinοpraxia Τouristiki Loutrakiou AE, O.T.A. — Loutraki AE — Club Hotel Casino Loutraki Τouristikes kai Xenodokhiakes Epikhirisis AE (Loutraki, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul the Commission’s confirmatory decision of 18 September 2012 — Αres (2012)1082114 — by which the applicant’s request for access to certain documents was refused, and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action the applicant seeks, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 18 September 2012, which finally refused the applicant’s confirmatory request for access to the letter of 16 May 2012 from the Greek authorities relating to the quantification of the amount of unlawful State aid to be recovered in accordance with the decision dated 24 May 2011 (1) of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Competition.

In support of its action the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

First, the applicant claims an infringement of the obligation on the administration to state reasons for the refusal decisions, given that in its reply, the administration confines itself to a general reference to the exceptions laid down in Regulation 1049/2001, without any further elaboration and without any real statement of reasons for the decision.

Secondly, the applicant claims an infringement of the principle of transparency, contrary to the well known Regulation 1049/2001 and Regulation 659/1999, (2) given that the defendant is not providing to the public the widest possible access to documents by neither interpreting nor applying strictly the exceptions laid down in Regulation 1049/2001.

Lastly, the applicant claims an infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, and of Articles 6 and 20 of Regulation 659/1999 in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and by extension in breach of the principle of good administration.

(1) Decision of the European Commission of 24 May 2011, Ε(2011) 3504 final, on State aid to certain Greek casinos No C 16/2010 (formerly ΝΝ 22/2010, formerly CP 318/2009).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/21

Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Wedi v OHIM — Mehlhose Bauelemente für Dachrand + Fassade (BALCO)

(Case T-541/12)

2013/C 46/37

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wedi GmbH (Emsdetten, Germany) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mehlhose Bauelemente für Dachrand + Fassade GmbH & Co. KG (Herford, Germany)

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 25 September 2012 in Case R 2255/2011-4;

— Alternatively, suspend the proceedings in Case R 2255/2011-4 until a final decision has been made on the applicant’s application of 15 November 2012 for a declaration of invalidity of the other party’s Community trade mark No 006095889 Balkogrün; reference No 000007267 C of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

— 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: the word mark ‘BALCO’ for goods in Class 19 — Community trade mark application No 9 023 771

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mehlhose Bauelemente für Dachrand + Fassade GmbH & Co. KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word marks ‘Balkogrün’, ‘Balkoplan’ and ‘Balkotop’ for goods in Classes 19, 21 and 27

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
—

consequently, uphold the appellant’s form of order sought at first instance and thus — annul Decision No 88/10 A of 3 March 2010 of the President of the EESC rejecting the application brought by the appellant on 7 December 2009 and deciding to reassign him; — annul the addition to Decision No 88/10 of 25 March 2010; — annul Decision No 133/10 A of 24 March 2010 terminating the appellant’s functions as head of unit of the legal service with immediate effect and reassigning him in his capacity as head of unit, together with his post, to another service from 6 April 2010; — annul Decision No 184/10 A of 13 April 2010 of the President of the EESC reassigning the applicant to the Directorate for Logistics, which took effect on 6 April 2010; — order the respondent to pay EUR 17 500 in damages; — order the respondent to pay all the costs;