ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 244/10

Action brought on 30 July 2009 — CNIPT v Commission

(Case T-302/09)

2009/C 244/16

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Comité national interprofessionnel de la pomme de terre (CNIPT) (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Ledoux and B. Néouze, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final (1) of 10 December 2008, by which the Commission held that the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the French agricultural interprofessional organisations, consisting of aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products, for research and development and for advertising in favour of primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by interministerial order (‘CVLs’) to be taken from the members of those interprofessional organisations constitutes State aid compatible with the common market.

The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission.

In addition, the applicant submits that there is a breach of the principle of non-discrimination, since the Commission dealt in generally and in the same way with a number of distinct CVL schemes.

(1) OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/35

Action brought on 28 August 2009 — Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida v OHIM — Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida (PUERTA DE LABASTIDA)

(Case T-345/09)

2009/C 256/62

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida, SL (Autol, Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida, S. Coop. Ltda (Labastida, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 28 May 2009 in Case R 1021/2008-1, allowing the application for registration of ‘PUERTA DE LABASTIDA’ (word mark) as a Community trade mark for Classes 29, 33 and 35;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: BODEGAS Y VIÑEDOS PUERTA DE LABASTIDA S.L.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PUERTA DE LABASTIDA’ (Application No 4473278) for goods and services in Classes 29, 33 and 35.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: UNIÓN DE COSECHEROS DE LABASTIDA, S. COOP. LTDA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘CASTILLO DE LABASTIDA’ (No 617 137) for goods in Class 33; Community word mark ‘CASTILLO LABASTIDA’ (No. 23 382) for goods in Class 33; and Community word mark ‘CASTILLO LABASTIDA’ (No 3 515 566) for services in Classes 35, 39 and 43.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42 and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/29

Action brought on 18 August 2009 — J & F Participações v OHIM — Fribo Foods (Friboi)

(Case T-324/09)

2009/C 256/54

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: J & F Participações SA (Sorocaba, Brazil) (represented by: A. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fribo Foods Ltd (Wrexham, United Kingdom)

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 22 April 2009 in case R 824/2008-1; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “Friboi”, for goods in class 29

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: United Kingdom trade mark registration of the word mark “FRIBO” for goods in class 29; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the figurative mark “Fribo” for goods in class 29; German trade mark registration of the word mark “FRIBO” for goods in class 29; German trade mark registration of the figurative mark “FRIBO” for goods in class 29; French trade mark registration of the word mark “FRIBO” for goods in class 29; French trade mark registration of the figurative mark “FRIBO” for goods in class 29; Italian trade mark registration of the word mark “FRIBO” for goods in class 29; Italian trade mark registration of the figurative mark “FRIBO” for goods in class 29.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

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

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; infringement of Article 42 Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal erred when taking into account evidence for proof of use submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal which did not meet the requirements of the said legal provision and did not show place, time, extent and nature of use.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/77

Action brought on 14 September 2009 — Novácke chemické závody/Commission

(Case T-352/09)

2009/C 267/138

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novácke chemické závody, a.s. (Nováky, Slovak Republic) (represented by: A. Černejová, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision with respect to the applicant and consequently cancel the fine imposed on the applicant; or

— in the alternative, cancel the fine imposed on the applicant in the Article 2 of the decision or at least significantly decrease the fine imposed on the applicant; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission decision of 22 July 2009 (Case No COMP/F/39.396 — Calcium and magnesium reagents for the steel and gas industries) where the Commission found the applicant together with other undertakings liable for the infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA through market sharing, quotas, customer allocation, price fixing and exchanges of sensitive commercial information between suppliers of calcium carbide and magnesium granulates. Alternatively, the applicant seeks the cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed on it pursuant to Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

The application is based on the following grounds:

First, the applicant submits that the Commission has breached the principle of proportionality and equal treatment which are general principles of Community law, by imposing an excessive and disproportionate fine on the applicant.

Second, that applicant claims that the Commission failed to investigate the applicant’s ability to pay the fine and the risk that the fine may lead to its bankruptcy. The applicant submits, in particular, that the Commission failed to adhere to the essential procedural requirements, that it did not properly examine the evidence supplied by the applicant showing the imminent risk of a bankruptcy proceeding should the Commission impose a fine on it. Hence, it is submitted that the Commission committed a manifest error of appraisal in failure to establish the aforementioned risk and to apply paragraph 35 of the Guidelines in respect of the applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/76

Action brought on 4 September 2009 — ICO Satellite v Commission

(Case T-350/09)

2009/C 267/137

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ICO Satellite Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Tupper, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— order that Decision No 2009/449/EC of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European Systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) is void in accordance with the provisions of Articles 230 and 231 EC;

— order that the costs of the present action be paid by the defendant and any other orders it may deem appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision No 2009/449/EC of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European Systems providing mobile satellite services (“MSS”) (1).

It is submitted that the contested decision has the effect of depriving the applicant of property rights legitimately accrued to it under international law. The applicant further claims that the contested decision is unlawful because the Commission has:

(a) discriminated against the applicant by involving a former chairman of the Inmarsat Ventures Limited Council (“Inmarsat”) in the decision-making process, thereby infringing essential procedural requirements and breaching the principle of equal treatment; and

(b) acted unreasonably, by selecting Inmarsat and Solaris Mobile Limited over the applicant when the latter is allegedly in an objectively better position to provide MSS. According to the applicant, by adopting the contested decision, the defendant has acted disproportionately and in a way which is discriminatory and contrary to the applicant’s legitimate expectations. The applicant further submits that the contested decision also constitutes a violation of its rights to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions as protected by Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”), as well as the right to enjoy its civil rights, including property rights and the right to a fair and public hearing, enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR.

(1) 2009/449/EC: Commission Decision of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (notified under document number C(2009) 3746) (OJ 2009 L 149, p. 65)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 297/26

Action brought on 5 October 2009 — General Bearing v OHIM (GENERAL BEARING CORPORATION)

(Case T-394/09)

2009/C 297/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): General Bearing Corp. (West Nyack, United States) (represented by: A. Dellmeier-Beschorner, lawyer)

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 16 July 2009 in case R 73/2009-1;

— Order the defendant to register the Community trade mark concerned;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the court; and

— Set a date for an oral hearing if such is deemed necessary.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “GENERAL BEARING CORPORATION” for goods in classes 7 and 12

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 Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as well as of general principles of trademark law, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that the Community trade mark concerned is not eligible for registration due to the fact that it is a purely descriptive term.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/60

Action brought on 24 September 2009 — Bianchin v OHIM — Grotto (GASOLINE)

(Case T-380/09)

2009/C 282/111

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luciano Bianchin (Asolo, Italy) (represented by: G. Massa and P. Massa, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Grotto SpA (Chiuppano, Italy)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 13 July 2009 on all the grounds set out in the application and order OHIM to pay the costs;

— order the production of the documents filed in Case Nos B 630410, 000002087/C and R1455/2008-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:‘GASOLINE’ (application for registration No 2 901 064) for goods in Class 9.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: GROTTO S.p.A.

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Italian figurative mark composed of the word element ‘GAS (keep it simple)’ (registration Nos 959 343 and 876 729) for, inter alia, goods in Class 9, and figurative Community trade mark composed of the word element ‘GAS’ (No 2 867 463) for goods in Class 9.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: granted the application and declared that the registration of the Community trade mark in question was invalid.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissed the appeal.

Pleas in law: Articles 8(1)(b) and 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 are wholly inadequate.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 312/39

Action brought on 14 October 2009 — Honda Motor v OHIM — Blok (BLAST)

(Case T-425/09)

2009/C 312/64

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hendrik Blok (Oudenaarde, Belgium)

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 16 July 2009 in case R 1097/2008-1;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BLAST’, for goods in classes 7 and 12

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: Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘BLAST’ for goods and services in classes 7, 35 and 37; Benelux trade mark registration of the word mark ‘BLAST’ for goods and services in classes 7, 35 and 37

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 297/26

Action brought on 2 October 2009 — NEC Display Solutions Europe v OHIM — Nokia (NaViKey)

(Case T-393/09)

2009/C 297/38

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: P. Munzinger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nokia Corp. (Helsinki, Finland)

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 16 June 2009 in case R 1143/2008-2;

— Dismiss the opposition filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal against the registration of the Community trade mark concerned;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “NaViKey” for goods in class 9

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: Community trade mark registration of the word mark “NAVI” for goods and services in classes 9 and 38; Finish trade mark registration of the word mark “NAVI” for goods in class 9

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal: (i) erred when determining the relevant public whose perception must be taken into account; (ii) erred when assessing the similarity between the trade marks concerned and the goods covered; and (iii) failed to take into account that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal is not entitled to prohibit the use of later trade marks containing the element “NAVI”, as a result of the lack of distinctiveness of such or of low degree of distinctiveness, and therefore not entitled to rely on Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 to obtain the rejection of the application for the Community trade mark concerned; infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to state reasons for its finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 11/33

Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Agriconsulting Europe v Commission

(Case T-443/09)

2010/C 11/62

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Agriconsulting Europe SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and A. Neri, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision.

— Order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered.

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present action is a leading management consultancy providing technical advisory services for international development projects. It is bringing an action against the Commission’s decision in connection with the award of Lot No 11 in contract notice EuropeAid/127054/C/SER/multi (OJ S 128 of 4 July 2008) not to include among the six economically most advantageous bids that submitted by the consortium of which the applicant was the leading participant and to award that lot to other tenderers.

The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support of its application for annulment:

— distortion of the evidence and the factual circumstances. The contested decision rejected the applicant’s bid on the basis that the ‘declarations of exclusivity’ of three experts in its bid were also to be found in other bids and it was therefore necessary to exclude them from the evaluation. That conclusion is vitiated in so far as it failed to take account of the experts’ statements denying that some of those declarations had any value, on the one hand, or actually claiming that they were false, on the other;

— misinterpretation of the consequences to be drawn from the non-compliance of the ‘declarations of exclusivity’ and infringement of the principle of legal certainty, in so far as the defendant imposed the penalty laid down for cases in which more than one declaration of exclusivity is signed on all the tenders, without considering the role and responsibilities of the company or the expert;

— infringement of legal requirements, of the principle of sound administration and the principal of proportionality, in so far as the defendant failed to exercise the power conferred on it to request clarification where there is some ambiguity concerning some aspect of the tender before confirming that errors exist which may affect the validity of a tender.

The applicant, which also submits that there has been infringement of the obligation to state reasons, seeks, in addition, compensation for the damage suffered on grounds of non-contractual liability for unlawful acts or, in the alternative, for lawful acts.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 312/33

Action brought on 8 October 2009 — ancotel v OHIM — Acotel (ancotel)

(Case T-408/09)

2009/C 312/55

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: ancotel GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Truelsen, 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: Acotel SpA (Rome, Italy)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 19 June 2009 in Case R 1385/2008 1;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: ancotel

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘ancotel’ for services in Classes 35 and 38 (Application No 3 314 424)

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: in particular the Italian figurative mark No 643 751 and the Community figurative mark No 1 442 268‘ACOTEL’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 38

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade 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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/67

Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER Garden)

(Case T-479/09)

2010/C 24/118

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, H.L. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano Milanofiori (Milan), Italy)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 — R 1044/2008-4.

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bricocenter Italia S.r.l.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BRICOCENTER Garden’ (Application No 4 935 144) in respect of services in Class 35.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade marks containing the word elements ‘CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTER’ (No 3 262 623) and ‘ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTER’ (No 989 046) in respect of services in Class 35, 37 and 39.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition Division’s decision annulled and the opposition rejected in its entirety.

Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.