ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/32

Action brought on 24 April 2014 — Novomatic v OHIM — Berentzen Mally Marketing plus Services (BLACK JACK TM)

(Case T-257/14)

2014/C 194/41

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Berentzen Mally Marketing plus Services GmbH (Meerbusch, 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 18 February 2014 in Case R 329/2012-4 with the consequence that OHIM will have to reject the opposition in its entirety due to lack of similarity of the goods and/or signs and lack of a likelihood of confusion and allow Community trade mark application No 9 4 56 278 to proceed to registration in accordance with the application;

— Order OHIM and — in the case of written intervention — the opposing party to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the appeal proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘BLACK JACK TM’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 9 4 56 278

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Berentzen Mally Marketing plus Services GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word and figurative mark ‘BLACK TRACK’ for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the trade mark application was rejected in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/46

Action brought on 7 March 2014 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-154/14)

2014/C 175/63

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Declare that the entire amount of EUR 185 664,10 which the Commission has already paid to the applicant in respect of the OASIS project and the entire amount of EUR 465 062,84 which the Commission has already paid to the applicant in respect of the PERFORM project constitute eligible costs;

— Declare that the amount of EUR 1 824,05 which the Commission has not paid in respect of the OASIS project and the amount of EUR 637 117,17 which the Commission has not paid as a portion in respect of the PERFORM project constitute eligible costs and consequently the Commission is under an obligation to pay those sums to ΑΝΚΟ, and

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action concerns the liability of the Commission under the contracts (a) 215 754 and (b) 215 952 for the performance of the (a) OASIS and (b) PERFORM projects respectively, under Article 272 TFEU.

In particular, the applicant maintains that, although it complied with its contractual obligations, the Commission, in breach of the abovementioned contracts, the principle of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights and the principle of proportionality, sought the recovery of sums paid to ΑΝΚΟ as not being eligible costs and refused to pay its outstanding portion. For that reason, the applicant maintains, first, that the rejection as constituting ineligible costs of almost all of the Commission’s portion in respect of the OASIS and PERFORM projects is contrary to the Commission’s contractual obligations to ΑΝΚΟ. Second, the applicant maintains that the attempt to recover almost all of those amounts is disproportionate and abusive.
—

Annul the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/276/14 Administrators (AD 5) for drawing up a reserve list of 137 candidates to fill vacant posts for Administrators (AD 5), published in volume C 74 A of the Official Journal of the European Union on 13 March 2014;
1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by the fundamental principles of European law, set out in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/33

Action brought on 27 March 2014 — Hüpeden v Council and Commission

(Case T-206/14)

2014/C 212/43

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hüpeden & Co. (GmbH & Co.) KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Landry, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought

— Order the defendants to pay compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 1 18 762,57 together with interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of delivery of the judgment, or to declare that the applicant is entitled to compensation from the defendants;

— Order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks compensation on account of the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008, (1) which was declared invalid by judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 March 2012 in Case C-338/10 GLS.

The applicant submits that although the anti-dumping duties wrongly collected on the basis of that regulation have been refunded by the national customs authorities, it suffered financial loss as a result of the fact that it was compelled by the withdrawal of liquidity to obtain additional bank loans at the usual market rates of interest, as well as short-term fixed-rate loans. The applicant therefore seeks reimbursement of the difference between the interest it paid on its bank loans and the lower amount of interest that it would have had to pay if no anti-dumping duties had been collected. The applicant submits in that regard that, by unlawfully adopting Regulation No 1355/2008, the defendants committed a sufficiently serious breach of their duty of due care and proper administration, resulting in a loss to the applicant for which compensation is not otherwise available, since there is no provision under the relevant national rules on import duties for interest to be paid on the amount of any difference in favour of the person liable to pay import duties, from the time of payment.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 350, p. 35).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/60

Action brought on 5 May 2014 — Christian Dior Couture v OHIM (Representation of a repetitive pattern with a raised effect)

(Case T-313/14)

2014/C 223/62

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Christian Dior Couture SA (Paris, France) (represented by M. Sabatier, 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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 4 March 2014 in Case R 459/2013-4, in so far as it dismissed the appeal brought against the Examiner’s decision, which refuses the protection of the Community trade mark system in respect of the international registration covering the European Union of the figurative mark No 1 1 00 187 to designate some of the products in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25;

— allow the registration of the figurative mark No 1 1 00 187 to designate all the products in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25, and in the alternative to designate the products whose use has been expressly proven;

— order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before OHIM and in the present action, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of the figurative mark representing a repetitive pattern with a raised effect in respect of the products in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/19

Action brought on 26 March 2014 — The Body Shop International v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA WISDOM)

(Case T-201/14)

2014/C 235/26

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Body Shop International plc (Littlehampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Vernimme, H. Viaene, S. Vandewynckel and D. Gillet, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium)

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 16 January 2014 given in Case R 1516/2012-4;

— Order the defendant, and, if necessary, the intervener, to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The wordmark ‘SPA WISDOM’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8 9 00 748

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: The Benelux trademarks Nos 3 89 230, 4 99 046, 3 72 307 for the word mark ‘SPA’ and the Benelux trademark No 6 93 395 for the word mark ‘LES THERMES DE SPA’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/21

Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (NEXTCARD)

(Case T-233/14)

2014/C 235/28

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi, G. Ghisletti and F. Braga, 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 Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 in Case R 1807/2013-5;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark NEXTCARD for goods and services in Classes 9 and 36 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 3 79 931

Decision of the Examiner: Application refused in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/28

Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Gutser v Commission

(Case T-392/14)

2014/C 245/38

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Gutser, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.C. García Muñoz, J.I. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Commission v Spain, relating to the tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements, also known as the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an infringement of essential procedural requirements and that it infringes Articles 20, 21 and 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that it was adopted following an investigation procedure in which there were substantial irregularities.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 107 and 108 TFEU in considering that the measures at issue constitute State aid, without having proved their selective nature.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 107 and 108 TFEU in considering that the measures at issue constitute State aid, without having proved their effect on inter-Community trade.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and infringed Article 107 TFEU in characterising the investors as beneficiaries of the aid. In addition, the decision is not supported by a sufficient statement of reasons.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/23

Action brought on 8 May 2014 — Novomatic v OHIM — Granini France (HOT JOKER)

(Case T-326/14)

2014/C 245/31

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. M. Mosing, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Granini France (Macon, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 6 February 2014 in Case R 589/2013-2, with the consequence that the opposition is rejected and the Community trade mark No 9 594 458 is registered as applied for;

— order that the defendant and — in case it intervenes in writing — the other party to the proceedings with OHIM have to bear their own costs and have to compensate the costs incurred by the Plaintiff in the proceeding in front of the General Court and in the appeal proceeding with OHIM

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘HOT JOKER’ for goods in Classes 9 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 594 458

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Granini France

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘joker +’ for goods in Classes 28 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; infringement of Article 75 ff. of Regulation No 207/2009; infringement of OHIM’s duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of European Union Law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/34

Action brought on 27 April 2014 — Dairek Attoumi v OHIM — Diesel (Belt)

(Case T-278/14)

2014/C 253/49

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Mansour Dairek Attoumi (Badalona, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J.M. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— put the proceedings back to the stage at which the CD containing invoices of the applicant for a declaration of invalidity was served on the applicant and annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 February 2014 in Case R 855/2012-3; in the alternative,

— put the proceedings back to just before the Board of Appeal gave its decision, annulling the contested decision and staying the proceedings until the court proceedings brought by the holder of that Community design against international trade mark No 6 08 499 are disposed of; in the alternative,

— grant the present application, declaring that the applicant for a declaration of invalidity of the Community design has not proved the use of its trade mark and therefore dismissing the application for a declaration of invalidity on that ground; in the alternative,

— grant the application, dismissing the invalidity proceedings in the light of the arguments set out above;

— together with all of the above, expressly order the defendant and any other party to the proceedings to pay all the costs relating to the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: representation of a belt with the word element ‘DIESEL’ — Registered Community design No 1044150-0003

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Diesel SpA

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National and Community word mark ‘DIESEL’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24 and 25

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Upheld the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:

— failure to provide the applicant with the CD containing the invoices;

— failure to stay the proceedings;

— the applicant holds Spanish trade mark No 2 5 85 042‘S.D.D. SUPER DIESEL DAIREK’;

— the remaining proof of use submitted by the applicant for a declaration of invalidity is not sufficient;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfil the criterion for listing, namely that the person has been ‘identified as responsible’ for misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds or human rights violations in Ukraine, or is a person associated with anyone who has been so identified. The only reason given for the listing of the applicant was that he was said to be subject to ‘investigation’ in Ukraine for involvement in crimes in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine. There is therefore not even an allegation (applying the Court's reasoning in Case T-256/11 Ezz) that the applicant was a person responsible for the misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds or human rights violations in Ukraine, or was associated with a person properly so identified.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/49

Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (ULTIMATE)

(Case T-385/14)

2014/C 253/65

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by U. Sander, 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 24 March 2014 in Case R 1787/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ULTIMATE for goods and services in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37

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.
2.

Second plea, alleging breach of the provisions of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). — The refusal to provide access to the documents on the ground that it would undermine the protection of privacy and integrity of the individual within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not constitute a legitimate reason, given that an anonymous version could have been provided. — The application of the exception relating to the protection of commercial interests within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is not justified, given that the evaluation report and the price schedule do not contain any information relating to technical resources or personnel and do reveal any know-how or technical expertise. — The decision-making process is not undermined within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 since (i) the award decision had been taken and the service contract had been signed with the successful tenderer when the decision refusing access was taken and (ii) the documents requested did not constitute opinions within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and since, in any event, the disclosure of the documents is not liable to undermine the Commission’s decision-making process. — There is an overriding public interest, namely, the principle of transparency in the area of the implementation of the budget. — It has not been shown that partial communication of the documents within the meaning of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 was not possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/52

Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Monthisa Residencial v Commission

(Case T-484/14)

2014/C 261/82

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Monthisa Residencial, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. de Artíñano Rodríguez de Torres and J. Martínez Muro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

— in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

— in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

In particular, it is alleged that Article 107(1) TFEU and the general principle of EU law relating to the protection of legitimate expectations have been infringed.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration in relation to Article 872a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1). — The Applicant submits that in the context of a procedure such as that of remission, in which the Commission may request all the additional information it considers appropriate and must give reasons for adopting a unfavourable decision, a decision that includes reasons for the refusal other than those included in its previous communication is contrary to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.