ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/50

Action brought on 11 July 2014 — bd breyton-design v OHIM (RACE GTP)

(Case T-520/14)

2014/C 303/59

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: bd breyton-design GmbH (Stockach, Germany) (represented by T. Raab and H. Lauf, 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 First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 in case R 1230/2013-1 in its entirety;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘RACE GTP’ for goods in class 12 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 0 18 918

Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009
—

in any event, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/45

Action brought on 25 June 2014 — Stavytskyi v Council

(Case T-486/14)

2014/C 303/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edward Stavytskyi (Belgium) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and M. Gambardella, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014, implementing Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 111, p. 91), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014, implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 111, p. 33), in so far as the contested acts include the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures;

— Order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law concerning infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as well as infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law relating to their application: violation of the right of hearing, violation of the obligation to give notice, insufficient statement of grounds, violation of the right of defence, incorrect legal basis, and manifest error of assessment.

The applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this. Furthermore, the Council failed to notify the Contested Acts to the applicant, and in any case these acts contained an insufficient statement of reasons. Requests for access to information and documents have not been replied to by the Council. By these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, who was denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings were withheld from the applicant. Further, the measures taken by the Council do not constitute foreign policy measures, but instead constitute international cooperation in criminal proceedings, which accordingly have been adopted on an incorrect legal basis. Finally, the measures taken by the Council were adopted without proper consideration of relevant facts as well as the case law from the European Court of Human Rights pertaining to criminal procedures in Ukraine, especially in relation to the prosecution of former government officers.
—

declare inoperative, or in the alternative, annul in part Article 4.1 of the decision relating to the prohibition of ‘transfer[ring] the burden of recovery on other subjects’, in so far as it entails a ruling on the prohibition or supposed invalidity of the contractual terms allowing recourse against third parties in respect of the amounts that the investors are required to reimburse to Spain; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 329/18

Action brought on 18 June 2014 — Messi Cuccittini v OHIM — Pires Freitas Campos (LEO)

(Case T-459/14)

2014/C 329/26

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo and M. Toro Gordillo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maria Leonor Pires Freitas Campos (Setúbal, Portugal)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General 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 March 2014 in Case R 1554/2013-1, in so far as by dismissing the applicant’s appeal, it confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division upholding opposition B 2009291 and refusing, in its entirety, Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 13 511‘LEO’;

— order the party or parties who oppose this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with the word element ‘LEO’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 13 511

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Maria Leonor Pires Freitas Campos

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘LEO D’HONOR’ for goods in Class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

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

The applicant submits in that regard that in the present case the process for obtaining certificates of origin is carried out in accordance with the rules laid down to that effect by the competent authorities, which apply the legislation incorrectly and fail to fulfil their obligations with regard to issuing certificates and monitoring the orderly functioning of the arrangements. It is also continuing conduct which helps to create legitimate expectations on the part of operators. The requirements are therefore satisfied in order to acknowledge that there is a special situation within the framework of the preferential arrangements.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/29

Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Device of a blue sphere)

(Case T-626/14)

2014/C 351/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, 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 17 June 2014 given in Case R 169/2014-5.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark representing a device of a blue sphere for goods in classes 3, 21 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 37 483

Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 339/21

Action brought on 21 July 2014 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Form of round sandwich bread)

(Case T-542/14)

2014/C 339/25

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, 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 (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 in Case R 1911/2013-4, because it is unlawful and infringes the legal provisions in force concerning the Community trade mark; deliver a judgment in accordance with the claims set out in the application, whether on the basis of the intrinsic distinctiveness of the three-dimensional mark applied for or the distinctiveness acquired by use, upholding the present action and ordering the registration of the application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark No 1 1 7 47 987, for goods in class 30 of the International Classification, on the grounds that it is lawful and admissible;

— once the present action has been upheld and the trade mark in question has been registered, order the party opposing that claim to pay the costs of the proceedings and to reimburse the appeal fees paid to OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark: Three-dimensional mark in the form of round sandwich bread for goods in class 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 47 987

Decision of the examiner: Application dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/28

Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Device of a sphere)

(Case T-625/14)

2014/C 351/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, 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 17 June 2014 given in Case R 168/2014-5.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark representing a device of a sphere for goods in classes 3, 21 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 37 541

Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/21

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Drex Technologies v Council

(Case T-603/14)

2014/C 361/31

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

— In consequence, order the European Union to compensate the applicant for the total loss suffered, up to EUR 10 000;

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/18

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Othman v Council

(Case T-595/14)

2014/C 361/25

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

— in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 10 000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 380/21

Action brought on 8 September 2014 — AF Steelcase v OHIM

(Case T-652/14)

2014/C 380/28

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: AF Steelcase, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: S. Rodríguez Bajón, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of 08.07.2014 of OHIM concerning the exclusion of AF Steelcase from the tender procedure in question;

— annul all other related decisions of OHIM in relation to the tender procedure in question, including, where appropriate, those awarding the contract forming the subject-matter of the procedure in question, directing that the tender procedure be brought back to a stage prior to the exclusion of AF Steelcase in order that its tender be assessed;

— in the alternative, should retroaction not be possible, order OHIM to pay the applicant EUR 20 380 by way of compensation for material damage caused to AF Steelcase by the exclusion decision. In addition, order OHIM to pay the applicant EUR 24 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage caused to AF Steelcase by the exclusion decision, and

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the exclusion of the tender submitted by the applicant in the public tender for the supply and installation of furniture and accessories (lot 1) and signage (lot 2) at OHIM’s head offices (OJEU 2014 S 023-035020, 1.2.2014).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons and change of criteria in the decision excluding AF Steelcase from the public tender in question. — It is claimed in this regard that, apart from the insufficient reasoning in the exclusion decision, the administration changed the criteria which resulted in serious unfairness to the applicant, inasmuch as even though initially it was indicated that the ground for exclusion of the tender was that the amendment to box 20 rendered the tender incomplete, the arguments for the additional examination were different, being based on that reasoning.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of sound administration and proportionality that govern the actions of the European administration. — It is claimed in this regard that, in the present case, it was for OHIM, having found that Annex 20 was different in format, to have contacted AF Steelcase in order to clarify to what it corresponded, since OHIM was required to act diligently and prudently when examining and assessing the tender in question.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are unlawful, in so far as they (i) infringe the obligation to state reasons laid down by Articles 296 TFEU and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and (ii) infringe the applicant’s right to property laid down by Article 1 of the Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and infringe the right to respect for his good name and reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR.
—

annul Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation in the Union (OJ L 150, p. 59); and
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by concluding that the applicant would not qualify as a micro, small and medium-sized enterprise and by leaving the door open for the Commission to re-claim the FP7 grants that were awarded to the applicant in the past, the Validation Panel breached the fundamental principles of European law of: (i) sound administration; (ii) legal certainty; and (iii) the protection of the applicant’s legitimate expectations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/49

Action brought on 15 August 2014 — Diapharm v Commission

(Case T-620/14)

2014/C 409/70

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: M. Weidner, N. Hußmann and T. Guttau, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that the defendant, in infringement of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9), did not request that the European Food Safety Authority carry out the scientific assessment of health claims relating to plant substances with a view to the adoption of a Community list of permitted claims in respect of plant substances pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and of all the necessary conditions for the use of those claims;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1)

In the applicant’s view the inaction of the Commission infringes Article 13(3) of Regulation No 1924/2006, which stipulates a definite deadline for implementation of 31 January 2010. The applicant submits that the Commission allowed that deadline to pass. The applicant submits in that connection that the Commission is not entitled to suspend the scientific assessment of health claims in respect of plant substances for an unlimited period. According to the applicant, the inaction on the part of the defendant fosters legal fragmentation throughout the European Union and is at variance with the fundamental purpose of the regulation of creating uniform rules throughout Europe.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).
First plea, alleging an error of law in the contested decision, in that it does not show that the applicant participated in any infringement whatever of the competition rules.

The applicant claims that it did not commit in person any anti-competitive acts and could not be held liable for an amicable settlement agreement relating to patents concluded by its parent company, to which it was not party and of the content of which it was unaware.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/45

Action brought on 25 July 2014 — One of Us and Others v Parlement and Others

(Case T-561/14)

2014/C 409/65

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Citizens’ Initiative One of Us and Others (represented by: C. de La Hougue, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, European Commission and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Communication COM (2014) 355 final;

— in the alternative, annul of Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011;

— order the defendants to pay the applicant’s costs of this procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s reply to the applicants’ legislative proposal and to the issues raised by the applicants in the citizens’ initiative ‘One of us’ is unsatisfactory as the Commission i) does not respond to the fact that the human embryo is a human being and ii) does not address obvious contradictions.

2. Second plea in law, alleging violation of the democratic process as the Commission: — does not provide legal reasons for its refusal to transmit the applicants’ proposal to the Parliament; — misunderstands the requirements of Regulation No 211/2011 (1) and maintains a monopoly of the legislative process contrary to the provisions of the Treaties on the institutional dialogue; — does not set out its legal and political conclusions separately as required by Regulation No 211/2011.

3. Third plea in law, alleging non-conformity of Regulation No 211/2011 with the Treaties. The applicants allege that: — the objectives of the Lisbon Treaty to improve the institutions’ democratic legitimacy and to encourage the participation of European citizens in the democratic process are countered if a citizens’ initiative can be dismissed by the Commission for subjective or arbitrary reasons without being examined by the Parliament; — the rule of law is infringed if the Commission’s decision is not subject to legal review.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/32

Action brought on 5 November 2014 — Merck v OHIM — Nestlé (HEALTHPRESSO)

(Case T-747/14)

(2014/C 462/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société de Produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘HEALTHPRESSO’ — Application for registration No 1 0 0 03 028

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2014 in Case R 1880/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Partially annul the contested decision insofar as the Board of Appeal upheld the opposition and rejected the CTM application for the goods in Class 30;

— Reject opposition No B 1 1 91 607;

— Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 96(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

annul the Commission Decision dated 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (Case Comp/AT. 39.612 — perindopril (Servier)) in its entirety, and in any event annul and/or reduce the fine imposed, in so far as it applies to Unichem; and
—

The applicant maintains that the contested regulation was erroneously adopted on the legal basis of Article 215 TFEU, although it is apparent from the objective and content of the regulation that it ought to have been adopted on the basis of Article 207 TFEU (formerly Article 133 EC) with regard to the common commercial policy and, consequently, ought to have been adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure. The applicant’s legal interest to bring proceedings is based on the fact that the contested measure is a regulatory act which does not entail any implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and is of direct concern to the applicant.