ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/39

Action brought on 6 September 2010 — Preparados Alimenticios v OHIM — Rila Feinkost-Importe (Jambo Afrika)

(Case T-377/10)

()

2010/C 301/64

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Preparados Alimenticios, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rila Feinkost-Importe GmbH & Co. KG (Stemwede-Levern, Germany)

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 9 June 2010 in case R 1144/2009-1;

— Declare the present action admissible and justified; and

— Declare that the contested Community trade mark application shall not be granted.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Jambo Afrika’, for goods in classes 29, 30 and 33

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registrations No 2573221, No 2573219 and No 2573216 of the figurative mark ‘JUMBO’, for goods in classes 29 and 30; Community trade mark registration No 2217404 of the figurative mark ‘JUMBO CUBE’, for goods in class 29; Community trade mark registration No 2412823 of the figurative mark ‘JUMBO MARINADE’, for goods in classes 29 and 30; Community trade mark registration No 2413391 of the figurative mark ‘JUMBO NOKKOS’, for goods in classes 29 and 30; Community trade mark registrations No 2413581, No 2423275, No 2970754, No 3246139, No 3754462 and No 4088761 of the figurative mark ‘JUMBO’ for goods in classes 29 and 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly excluded likelihood of confusion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/56

Action brought on 7 October 2010 — Bank Mellat v Council

(Case T-496/10)

()

2010/C 328/86

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Mellat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Gadhia, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Anderson, QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— annul paragraph 2 of Table B of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 (1) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

— annul paragraph 4 of Table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (2) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation No 668/2010 and of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision.

The three pleas in law relied on by the applicant are identical or similar to the first, second and fifth pleas relied on in Case T-492/10 Melli Bank v Council.

(1) Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25

(2) Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 317/38

Action brought on 16 September 2010 — Trenzas y Cables de Acero v European Commission

(Case T-428/10)

()

2010/C 317/70

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Trenzas y Cables de Acero (Santander, Spain) (represented by E. González Díaz and A. Tresandí Blanco, lawyers))

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annulment pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union of the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2010 C(2010) 4387 final on a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU in Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel;

— or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction pursuant to Article 261 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union of the amount of the fine imposed by that decision;

— an order that the Commission should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision challenged in these proceedings is the same as that in Case T-426/10 Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in that case.

The applicant claims that the Commission made an error of fact and of law by applying Article 101 TFEU Article 101 TFEU so far as concerns the attribution of liability to TYCSA PSC by reason of the alleged infringement of that article in that the Commission attributes liability for the conduct described in the Decision to TYCSA PSC as an alleged member of an economic entity made up of various legal entities (GSW, TQ, MRT and TYCSA PSA itself) from 30 November 1992 to 19 September 2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/36

Appeal brought on 20 September 2010 by Stefano Sotgia against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2010 in Case F-130/06, Sotgia v Commission

(Case T-443/10 P)

()

2010/C 328/62

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Stefano Sotgia (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Forms of order sought by the appellant

— Annulment of the judgment in Case F-130/06 Sotgia v Commission;

— Annulment of the decision of 11 April 2006 in so far as it classifies the applicant as a probationary official in grade A*6, step 2, as from 16 April 2006;

— In the alternative, reference of the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for judgment;

— Costs against the Commission, including those of the procedure at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the appellant are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-441/10 P Kurrer v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/58

Action brought on 26 October 2010 — Nike International v OHIM (DYNAMIC SUPPORT)

(Case T-512/10)

()

2010/C 346/112

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, USA) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 August 2010 in case R 640/2010-4; and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “DYNAMIC SUPPORT” for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No 8299869

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment and wrongly concluded that this Article precludes the registration of the mark applied for.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/56

Action brought on 7 October 2010 — Divandari v Council

(Case T-497/10)

()

2010/C 328/87

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ali Divandari (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Gadhia, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— annul paragraph 1 of Table A of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 (1) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

— annul paragraph 2 of Table A of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (2) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation No 668/2010 and of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision.

The four pleas in law relied on by the applicant are identical or similar to the first, second and fifth pleas relied on in Case T-492/10 Melli Bank v Council.

(1) Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25

(2) Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/31

Action brought on 4 November 2010 — Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers v OHIM — Ozone Laboratories Pharma (HYPOCHOL)

(Case T-517/10)

()

2011/C 13/60

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers GmbH & Co. KG (Pinneberg, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and R. Möller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ozone Laboratories Pharma SA (București, Romania)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1st September 2010 in case R 1332/2009-4; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HYPOCHOL’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 5718069

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 1171145 of the figurative mark ‘HITRECHOL’, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected 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, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks due to a lacking similarity between the signs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/41

Action brought on 9 November 2010 — Confortel Gestión v OHIM — Homargrup (CONFORTEL AQUA 4)

(Case T-521/10)

()

2011/C 30/74

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Confortel Gestión, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Homargrup, SA (Santa Susana, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 5 August 2010 in Case R 1359/2009-2, and consequently register Community trade mark No 5.276.951 ‘CONFORTEL Aqua 4’ for all of the classes sought, and

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Confortel Gestión, SA.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CONFORTEL Aqua 4’ for services in Classes 41, 43 and 44.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Homargrup, SA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘AQUA’ and Community figurative mark ‘A AQUA HOTEL’ and Spanish word marks ‘AQUAMARINA’ and ‘AQUATEL’, and Spanish figurative mark ‘AQUAMAR’, for services in Class 42.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the 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 13/29

Action brought on 22 October 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki/Commission

(Case T-511/10)

()

2011/C 13/56

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athènes, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 12 August 2010 of the Secretariat General of the European Commission (Ref. SG.E.3/FM/MIP/mbp/psi — Ares(2010) 508190 — 12/08/2010) rejecting the request for a review submitted by the applicant through its letter dated 31 December 2009, registered on 5 January 2010 (Ref. GESTDEM 2009/4890); and

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decision of 12 August 2010 (Ref. SG.E.3/FM/MIP/mbp/psi — Ares(2010) 508190 — 12/08/2010) rejecting the request for a review submitted by the applicant by its letter dated 31 December 2009, registered on 5 January 2010 (Ref. GESTDEM 2009/4890), in which the applicant, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), requested the review of the positions taken by the Publications Office of the European Union in its respective letter of 11 December 2009, following the applicant’s initial request dated 9 October 2009, concerning access to all requests for quotation pertaining to all lots of the Publications Office’s framework contracts No 6011, 6102, 6103, 6020, 6121, 6031 (apart from lot 4) and 10030.

In support of its claim the applicant argues that the defendant did not proceed to an individual assessment of the requested documents. Moreover, the applicant contends that the justification provided by the defendant with regard to the protection of the economic policy of the European Union, the protection of the commercial interests and the public security reasons should be rejected as wholly unfounded.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)
1.

First plea: infringement of the applicant's rights of defence. — The applicant claims in this regard that the Council infringed its right to effective legal protection and in particular the requirement to state reasons, in that it did not provide sufficient reasons for including it in Annex VIII to the contested regulation. — Next, the applicant claims that the Council failed, even though asked expressly, to provide grounds or points of view and the relevant evidence to justify the applicant's inclusion in Annex VIII to the contested regulation. — Finally, the applicant complains in the context of its first plea that the Council infringed its right to be heard, in so far as it failed to provide the applicant with the opportunity laid down in Article 36(3) and (4) of the contested regulation to present observations on its inclusion on the list of sanctioned persons, which would then have required the Council to review the issue.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/50

Action brought on 29 November 2010 — Nordmilch v OHIM — Lactimilk (MILRAM)

(Case T-546/10)

()

2011/C 30/90

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Nordmilch AG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: R. Schneider, 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: Lactimilk, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 September 2010 in Joined Cases R 1041/2009-4 and R 1053/2009-4, in so far as it refuses Community trade mark application 002 851 384 for certain goods in Classes 5 and 29;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘MILRAM’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30, 33, 33 and 43.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lactimilk, SA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘RAM’ for goods in Classes 29, and various national word marks ‘RAM’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection in part of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division, in so far as the opposition in respect of certain goods was rejected and refusal of registration for the goods in question.

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 marks at issue. The applicant also claims that the Board of Appeal did not take account, in respect of an opposing mark, that its protection had expired at the time of the decision of 15 September 2010.

(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 63/28

Action brought on 16 December 2010 — Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik v OHIM — Impexmetal (FŁT-1)

(Case T-571/10)

2011/C 63/54

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. (Kraśnik, Poland) (represented by: J. Sieklucki, 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: Impexmetal S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

Form of order sought

— annul in its entirety the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2010 in Case R 1387/2009-1;

— order OHIM and IMPEXMETAL S.A. to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in its action before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division of OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: figurative trade mark ‘FŁT-1’ for goods in Class 7 — application no 5026372

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: IMPEXMETAL S.A.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative trade marks ‘FŁT’ and national verbal and figurative trade marks ‘FŁT’ for goods in Class 7

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part and trade-mark application rejected in respect of several goods in Class 7

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division dismissed

Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) by reason of a misappraisal of the similarity of the opposing marks; failure to have regard for the fact that the trade mark applied for constitutes part of the name of the applicant company, which has been used long before the date of the application, and is a historically well-founded designation distinguishing the applicant; and failure to take account of the long-lasting and peaceful co-existence of the trade mark applied for and the trade marks cited in opposition.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
—

in the alternative, annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 2 of the decision of the European Commission of 30 September 2010 amending the decision of 30 June 2010 (C(2010) 4837 final in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel) insofar as it entails an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination in not having extended to GSW the additional period for payment of the fine, and fails to state reasons; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 238/18

Action brought on 19 April 2011 — J v Parliament

(Case T-160/10)

2011/C 238/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: J (Marchtrenk, Austria) (represented by: A. Auer, Rechtsanwalt)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament of 2 March 2010, whereby the applicant’s Petition No 1673/2009 of 19 November 2009 was dismissed;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament of 2 March 2010, whereby his petition concerning the alleged confiscation of various documents and works by Austrian officials was dismissed.

In support of his action, the applicant claims that his right to the admission of his petition has been infringed. The confiscation of the works by the Austrian authorities constituted an infringement of the right to property under Article 6(1) TFEU and Articles 17(1) and 51(1) of the The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/18

Action brought on 16 December 2010 — Vivendi v Commission

(Case T-567/10)

2011/C 72/31

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vivendi (Paris, France) (represented by: O. Fréget, J.Y. Ollier and M. Struys, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible;

— annul the Commission's decision of 1 October 2010 by which it rejected the complaint lodged by Vivendi on 2 March 2009 (registered under number 2009/4269), for infringement by the French Republic of Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 December 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services and, consequently, Article 106 TFEU, by granting a regulatory advantage as regards setting the level of telephone subscriptions;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant raises three pleas as regards the substance:

1. The first plea is based on an infringement of the principle of sound administration in that the Commission limited itself to a summary examination of the complaint submitted to it by the applicant.

2. The second plea is based on an error of law in relation to the assessment of the concept of special and exclusive rights within the meaning of Directive 2002/77/EC (1) and of Article 106(3) TFEU. — The applicant submits that the Commission cannot refrain from sanctioning the fact that the French Republic granted a regulatory advantage to France Télécom by setting the tariff for the universal service telephone subscription at a level which excludes the services offered by any of France Télécom's competitors by referring to the fact that no private operator made an application to eliminate the regulatory advantage. — The applicant claims, in the alternative, that such applications were made.

3. The third plea is based on an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in relation to the scope of the obligations of the national regulator resulting from the electronic communications directives, since the conduct of the Member State cannot be excused by the incompleteness or imprecision of the regulatory framework.

(1) Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21).