ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First plea in law, divided into two parts, alleging that the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU was misapplied, the Commission having classified the compensation paid to SNCM and CNM as State aid, on the basis the the first and fourth conditions laid down by the Court of Justice in Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeberg [2003] ECR I-7747 were not fully satisfied. — The applicant submits by the first part of the first plea that the contested decision misapplies the concept of State aid in so far as the Commission took the view that the first condition laid down in Altmark was not fully satisfied. The applicant maintains in that regard: — first, that by making a distinction between the basic service and the additional service, the Commission committed an error of fact and of law and failed to have due regard to the broad discretion enjoyed by Member States in determining which services of general economic interest they wish to preserve; — second, that, taken together, the services covered by the public service agreement concluded between SNCM and CNM on the one hand, and the Office de Transports de la Corse and the Collectivité territoriale de Corse (Corsica local authorities) on the other, constitute services of general economic interest and that agreement satisfies the first condition laid down in Altmark; — third, that even if a distinction must be made between the basic service and the additional service, the additional service constitutes, in the same way as the basic service, a service of general economic interest and satisfies the first condition laid down in Altmark, since there is a genuine need for public services arising from the inadequacy of the regular transport services operating under conditions of free competition. — By the second part of the first plea, the applicant submits that the contested decision misinterprets the concept of State aid in that the Commission took the view that the fourth condition laid down in Altmark was not satisfied. The applicant contends that the procedure for the award of the public service contract made it possible to ensure conditions of effective competition and, therefore, the selection of the most economically advantageous tender for the local authorities.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of transparency The applicant claims in this plea that by refusing to give specific information on the grounds for annulling the procurement procedure, the Commission infringed the principle of transparency laid down in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation. In particular, the applicant is not able to ascertain whether the grounds alleged are applicable. The applicant moreover claims that the highly specialised nature of the relevant market for the supply of satellite remote sensing data means that the number of potential tenderers is very limited and alleges that, prior to its decision to annul the procurement procedure, the Commission failed to make it known that there was a possibility that the procedure would be annulled if a given number of applicants was not reached.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/46

Action brought on 12 July 2013 — Mocek et Wenta/OHIM — Lacoste (KAJMAN)

(Case T-364/13)

2013/C 260/83

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Eugenia Mocek (Chojnice, Poland) and Jadwiga Wenta (Chojnice, Poland) (represented by: K. Grala, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lacoste SA (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim 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 10 May 2013 in Case R 2466/2010-4 and grant protection to the trade mark applied for for all the goods covered by the application;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court, including the expenses of the applicant, as well as the necessary costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicants

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark claiming the colours green, white and grey containing the word element ‘KAJMAN’ placed between the back and the head of a crocodile for goods and services in classes 18, 20, 22, 25 and 36 — Community trade mark registration No 5 686 845

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 of the figurative mark in black and white presenting a crocodile and the word mark ‘CROCODILE’ for goods and services in classes 16, 18, 20, 24, 25 and 36

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision insofar as the opposition was rejected for certain goods in classes 18 and 25, and rejected the contested Community trade mark application for these goods

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 284/4

Action brought on 2 August 2013 — KO-Invest v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz (Milkoshake For Active People)

(Case T-399/13)

2013/C 284/05

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: KO-Invest Sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding GmbH (Zug, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General 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 27 May 2013 (Case R 720/2012-4) in so far as it refuses registration of ‘Milkoshake For Active People’ as a Community trade mark for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32;

— amend the contested decision by registering the mark for all of the goods applied for;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark containing the word element ‘Milkoshake For Active People’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32

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 marks No 31 369 and No 31 344, international registration (IR) No 163 135 and the well-known trade mark ‘MILKA’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78 of 24.3.2009, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/18

Action brought on 10 July 2013 — Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC intimate)

(Case T-363/13)

2013/C 274/30

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Harper Hygienics S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, legal adviser)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clinique Laboratories LLC (New York, United States of America)

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 29 April 2013 (Case R 606/2012-5) in so far as it refuses registration of ‘CLEANIC intimate’ as a Community trade mark for all goods in Classes 3 and 16 and for certain goods in Class 5;

— amend the contested decision by registering the trade mark for all goods and services applied for;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: figurative trade mark containing the word elements ‘CLEANIC intimate’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 16 — Application No 009 217 531 for a Community trade mark

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Clinique Laboratories LLC

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade marks No 54 429 for goods in Classes 3, 14, 25 and 42 and No 2 294 429 for goods in Classes 35 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) as regards establishment of the similarity of the trade marks and of the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers, and breach of Article 8(5) of that regulation

(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 304/25

Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission

(Case T-463/13)

2013/C 304/43

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Santiago de Compostela, Spain) (represented by: M. Lorenzo Outón, P. Egerique Mosquera, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision by holding that the measures implemented in the Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Autonomous Community of Galicia) did not constitute unlawful State aid;

— in the alternative, in the event that the first head of claim is dismissed, annul the contested decision in order to conclude that RETEGAL is not a direct or an indirect beneficiary of unlawful State aid; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present case is the same as that in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission, and Case T-462/13 Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in those cases.

The applicant claims, in particular, that:

1. The Commission erred in law in concluding that there was State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

2. The Commission infringed Article 106(2) TFEU in considering that the measures at issue are incompatible with the internal market.

3. The Commission infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, since it acknowledges, in the contested decision, that there is a structural deficiency in the public sector in question and that the public intervention at issue pursues an objective of public interest, but that it nevertheless describes the measure as State aid incompatible with the internal market on the ground that the principle of technological neutrality has been infringed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/9

Action brought on 5 August 2013 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA)

(Case T-400/13)

2013/C 298/16

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cosmetica Cabinas, SL (El Masnou, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 6 June 2013 given in Case R 1643/2012-1;

— Award the applicant the cost of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘AINHOA’ — Community trade mark registration No 2 720 811

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

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The cancellation applicant relied on Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and/or 8(5), in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has erred in its interpretation of the Settlement Agreement by concluding that it afforded greater protection than that which could have obtained through enforcement of the process patent. As such, the applicant submits that the defendant has committed an error of law and/or assessment of the facts.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/32

Action brought on 23 August 2013 — Larrañaga Otaño v OHIM (GRAPHENE)

(Case T-458/13)

2013/C 313/60

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Joseba Larrañaga Otaño (San Sebastian, Spain) and Mikel Larrañaga Otaño (San Sebastian) (represented by F. Bueno Salamero, lawyer)

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

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark applied for: Word mark ‘GRAPHENE’ for goods and services in Classes 13, 23, 25 and 38 — application for Community trade mark No 10 895 258.

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the Defendant wrongly imposed a fine on Lundbeck despite the novelty of the factual and legal issues raised in this case, thereby also violating the principle of legal certainty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/39

Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-443/13)

2013/C 325/66

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mohammad Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

(1) OJ 2011 C 282, p.30.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/62

Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NAMMU)

(Case T-498/13)

2013/C 344/115

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vincci Hoteles, SA (Alcobendas, Spain)

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 27 June 2013 given in Case R 611/2012-1; 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 ‘NAMMU’ for gods and services in Classes 3, 32 and 44 — Community trade mark registration No 5 238 704

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

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application was based on Article 8(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) CTMR

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 57 (2) and (3) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/25

Action brought on 4 September 2013 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council

(Case T-477/13)

2013/C 336/55

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank S.A. L. (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: P. Vanderveeren, L. Defalque and T. Bontinck, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— acknowledge the European Union’s non-contractual liability on account of the fact that the applicant was included and retained in Annex II to Council Regulation No 36/2012/EU;

— as a result, order full and adequate compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the unlawful conduct of the European Union amounting to EUR 41 074 940, together with compensatory and default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points, and grant a provisional indemnity of EUR 1 million, to be adjusted according to the expenses and investment which the applicant must incur in order to re-establish its image and reputation;

— in the alternative, if it is held that the amount of harm suffered must be recalculated, order an expert report in accordance with Article 65(d), Article 66(1) and Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, concerning the unlawful conduct alleged against the Council both in adopting the measures for the freezing of funds and in retaining them since January 2012, the applicant relies on four pleas in law alleging:

— a manifest error of assessment as regards the implication of the applicant in the financing of the Syrian regime;

— a lack of sufficient and precise reasons for the measures taken by the Council against the applicant;

— infringement of the rights of the defence to a fair hearing and to effective judicial protection and

— defects in the examination carried out by the Council, tainting by illegality the restrictive measures applied by the Council.

The applicant claims that the measures for the freezing of funds taken by the Council constitute the definite cause of both the material and non-material harm suffered by it.

Concerning material harm, the applicant claims that it suffered significant operational and technological losses as a result, in particular, of the loss of business relations with several European and Arab banks, the radical reduction in its operating results and the loss of numerous banking assets since 2012. Furthermore, its previous supplier of banking software has terminated all relations with it.

Concerning non-material harm, the applicant asks to be compensated for the damage resulting from the harm done to its image due to the unlawful measures for the freezing of funds adopted by the Council.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 352/20

Action brought on 26 September 2013 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE)

(Case T-522/13)

2013/C 352/38

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kenzo, SA (Paris, France)

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 3 July 2013 given in Case R 1363/2012-2;

— Order the defendant 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 word mark ‘KENZO ESTATE’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31, 35, 41 and 43 — International Registration No W 1 016 724

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 word mark ‘KENZO’ for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark No 720 706

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

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

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/58

Action brought on 3 September 2013 — NumberFour v OHIM — Inaer Helicópteros (ENFORE)

(Case T-478/13)

2013/C 344/106

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: NumberFour AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Götz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Inaer Helicópteros, SA (Mutxamel, Spain)

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 23 May 2013 given in Case R 1000/2012-5;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ENFORE’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 10 059 624

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 word mark ‘EINFOREX’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark registration No 6 530 927

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/37

Action brought on 22 October 2013 — Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller, Köln v OHIM (Original Eau de Cologne)

(Case T-556/13)

2013/C 367/66

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller, Köln eV (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen, 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 OHIM of 21 August 2013 (Case R 2064/2012-4);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Original Eau de Cologne’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark application No 10 787 794

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), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009