ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/14

Action brought on 28 June 2013 — CN v Parliament

(Case T-343/13)

2013/C 245/17

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CN (Brumath, France) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the European Union and the European Parliament to pay the applicant EUR 1 000 for the material damage suffered, plus interest calculated at the rate of 6.75 %;

— order the European Union and the European Parliament to pay the applicant EUR 40 000 for the non-material damage suffered, plus interest calculated at the rate of 6.75 %;

— order the European Union and the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, CN, a retired former official of the Council, seeks compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered as a result of the publication of an extract from a petition submitted by the applicant containing items of personal data, including information concerning his state of health and the fact that there is a disabled individual in his family, on the European Parliament’s own website, which may also be accessed by users from outside that institution.

That information was made widely available, given that it was possible to gain access to the petition extract published by the Parliament by entering the applicant’s name in the Google search engine.

In spite of requests made by the applicant, the Parliament withdrew the publication of the personal data in question only after the applicant had instructed a lawyer.

As grounds for his claim that the European Parliament acted unlawfully, the applicant alleges that the following have been infringed:

1. Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

2. Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

3. Article 22 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted on 13 December 2006 and ratified by the European Union on 23 December 2010;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/23

Action brought on 7 June 2013 — Enosi Mastichoparagogon/OHIM — Gaba International (ELMA)

(Case T-309/13)

(2013/C 226/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou (Chios, Greece) (represented by: A. Malamis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gaba International Holding AG (Hamburg, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 26 March 2013, in Case R 1539/2012-4;

— Order the Office and other party (opponent before the Opposition Division and appellee before the OHIM’s Board of Appeal) to bear their own costs and pay those of the CTM applicant (applicant for annulment).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ELMA’ for goods in class 5 — International registration designating the European Community 900 845

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 of the word mark ‘ELMEX’ for goods in classes 3, 5 and 21

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
—

annul the decision of the Eurogroup of 25 March 2013, which took its final form through the decision of the Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus as the representative and/or agent of the European System of Central Banks dated 29 Μarch 2013, K.D.P [Regulatory Administrative Act] 104/2013, whereby the ‘sale of certain operations’ of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd was decided and which in essence constitutes a joint decision of not only the European Central Bank but also of the European Commission;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/50

Action brought on 22 July 2013 — Innovation First/OHIM (NANO)

(Case T-379/13)

2013/C 260/89

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Innovation First, Inc. (Greenville, United States) (represented by: J. Zecher, 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 defendant of April 19, 2013 in the matter R 1271/2012-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the cost of the appeal proceeding before the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘NANO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 9 157 421

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 75 and 37(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, Rule 50(2)(h) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Articles 76 and 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/45

Action brought on 8 July 2013 — VECCO and Others v Commission

(Case T-360/13)

2013/C 260/81

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) (Memmingen, Germany) and 185 others (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— Declare that Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 of 17 April 2013 Amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2013 L 108, p. 1) is partially unlawful as it is based on a manifest error of assessment and violates Article 58(2) of REACH, the principle of proportionality and the right of defence (including the principles of sound administration and excellence of scientific advice);

— Partially annul the Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 insofar as it does not contain in its Annex at row 16, fifth column, under the title ‘Exempted categories of use’, the following exemption: ‘use of chromium trioxide for production purposes in aqueous solution, thereby complying with an exposure value of maximum 5μg/m3 (or 0,005 mg/m3)’ or similar language aimed at exempting the ‘use of chromium trioxide in electroplating, etching processes, electropolishing and other surface treatment processes and technologies as well as mixing,’ or words to that effect from the scope of the contested act;

— Order the defendant to amend Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 so as to comply with the Court’s judgment; and

— Order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 is unlawful as it is based on a number of manifest errors of appraisal and must be annulled insofar as it does not contain an exemption from authorisation in respect of the use of chromium trioxide in the chromium plating industry.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 is based on an underlying assessment of occupational risk related to the use of chromium trioxide in chromium plating that is scientifically and legally flawed (manifest error of appraisal).

3. Third plea in law, alleging Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 infringes Article 58(2) of REACH and the principle of proportionality.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 284/4

Appeal brought on 25 July 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 May 2013 in Case F-4/12, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-385/13 P)

2013/C 284/04

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Annul the order under appeal in its entirety and without exception;

— Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-203/13 P Marcuccio v Commission.
—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 10 April 2013 in Case R 427/2012-1, in so far as it rejected the application for registration of the trade mark ‘DAISY’ for the following products: confectionery, pastry, sweets, caramels, wine gums, caramel, chewing-gum, gelatine (confectionery), liquorice, lollipops, toffee, pastilles, sugar, chocolate, cocoa.
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law in classifying the process of digitalisation as State aid. — The applicants claim, in that regard, that the Commission carried out an incorrect analysis of Article 171(1) TFEU, having regard in particular to the case-law in Altmark concerning Services of General Economic Interests (SGEI), and that it was therefore wrong to conclude that there was State aid in the present case. — They add, in that context, that the measures examined in the contested decision were intended solely to ensure transmission of the digital television signal in the so-called ‘Zone II’ area (part of the territory that is not served by commercial operators and in which the population, in the absence of intervention by public authorities, would be deprived of access to television). — Moreover, the applicants observe that the principle of ‘technological neutrality’ may not lead to depriving the Member States of the discretion conferred on them by the Treaties to organise the provision of SGEIs. — In any event, the national authorities have favoured terrestrial technology over satellite technology in Zone II because that option was clearly more logical, economical and effective, taking into account the pre-existing analogue terrestrial network, funded by public funds, which already covered Zone II.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/33

Action brought on 9 September 2013 — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack v OHIM — Cryo-Save (CryoSafe)

(Case T-482/13)

2013/C 313/63

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG (Billerbeck, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cryo-Save AG (Pfäffikon, Switzerland)

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) (OHIM) of 4 July 2013 (Case R 1759/2012-4) and alter it to the effect that the appeal lodged by the applicant at OHIM is well-founded and the opposition is therefore to be rejected;

— In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 July 2013 (Case R 1759/2012-4) and refer the case back to the competent Examiner at OHIM;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CryoSafe’ for goods and services in Classes 5 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 9 619 586

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cryo-Save AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘CryoSave’ for goods in Classes 10, 42 and 44

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 (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/48

Action brought on 13 September 2013 — Schmidt Spiele v OHIM (Representation of a games board)

(Case T-492/13)

2013/C 325/77

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Schmidt Spiele GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by T. Sommer, 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 OHIM of 3 July 2013 in Case R 1767/2012-1;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs;

— Set a date for the oral procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the representation of a games board for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 10 592 103

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) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation imposed restrictions on TMX that were not based on sound science and failed to respect due process, in violation of Articles 4,12(2), 21, 49 and Annex II of Regulation 1107/2009 (1) and the principles of legal certainty and rights of the defence. In particular, the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) review and the subsequent restrictions imposed were not based on any new scientific evidence indicating risk, ignored significant amounts of relevant science, contained material errors in key parameters and were not based on any agreed methodology for conducting a risk assessment. Moreover, EFSA did not find any risk for bee colony survival or of sublethal effects and presented no negative conclusions at all based on actual field studies. The process of review and adoption of the restrictive measures was rushed to the extent that the scientific review could not be thoroughly carried out and stakeholders were not given adequate opportunities to give input.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/63

Action brought on 9 September 2013 — nMetric v OHIM (SMARTER SCHEDULING)

(Case T-499/13)

2013/C 344/116

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: nMetric LLC (Costa Mesa, United States) (represented by: T. Fuchs and A. Münch, lawyers)

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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2013 given in Case R 887/2012-2;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SMARTER SCHEDULING’ for goods in Class 9 — International registration No 1 093 837 designating the European Union

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/28

Action brought on 18 September 2013 — May v OHIM — Constantin Film Produktion (WINNETOU)

(Case T-501/13)

2013/C 336/59

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Karl May Verwaltungs- und Vertriebs- GmbH (Bamberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Pejman, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 9 July 2013 in Case R 125/2012-1;

— Order the defendant 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: the word mark ‘WINNETOU’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 39, 41, 42 and 43 (Community trade mark No 2 735 017)

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Cancellation Division’s decision was annulled and the Community trade mark was declared invalid in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of the principle of the autonomy and independence of the Community trade mark and of the Community trade mark regime and infringement of Articles 76 and 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 352/19

Action brought on 23 September 2013 — Future Enterprises v OHIM — McDonald's International Property (MACCOFFEE)

(Case T-518/13)

2013/C 352/36

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Future Enterprises Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: J. Olsen, B. Hitchens, R. Sharma and M. Henshall, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd (Wilmington, United States)

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 13 June 2013 given in Case R 1178/2012-1; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘MACCOFFEE’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark registration No 7 307 382

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 8(1)(a) and (b), 8(2)(c) and 8(5) CTMR

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Upheld the request for invalidity in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/61

Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Inceda Holding (Watt)

(Case T-495/13)

2013/C 344/112

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sales & Solutions (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Inceda Holding (Cologne, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2013 in appeal proceedings R 1193/2012-4;

— Order the intervener to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘Watt’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 090 471

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Inceda Holding

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the mark concerned was declared invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/32

Action brought on 7 October 2013 — Vakoma v OHIM — VACOM (VAKOMA)

(Case T-535/13)

2013/C 367/57

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Vakoma GmbH (Magdeburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Kazzer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: VACOM Vakuum Komponenten & Messtechnik GmbH (Jena, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Reject opposition No B1 833 915 as unfounded by annulling the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 August 2013 (Case R 0908/2012-1), which was notified to the applicant on 6 August 2013, and by annulling the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 12 March 2012;

— 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 figurative mark ‘VAKOMA’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 40 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 437 963

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: VACOM Vakuum Komponenten & Messtechnik GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Community word mark ‘VACOM’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 42

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 (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 359/18

Action brought on 8 October 2013 — Al Matri v Council

(Case T-545/13)

2013/C 359/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fahed Mohamed Sakher Al Matri (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister, and G. Martin, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Implementing Decision 2013/409/CFSP (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 735/2013 (2), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has manifestly erred in its assessment that the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled as regards the applicant.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial protection.

3. Third plea in law, alleging failure to give adequate reasons.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s right to property and to conduct his business.

(1) Council Implementing Decision 2013/409/CFSP of 30 July 2013 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2013 L 204, p. 52)

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 735/2013 of 30 July 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2013 L 204, p. 23)