ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 December 2013 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)

(Case T-718/13)

(2014/C 71/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Directv Group, Inc. (El Segundo, United States of America) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bolloré SA (Érgue Gaberic, 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 Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2013 given in Case R 1812/2012-2 and accordingly acknowledge the validity of the contested trade mark.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘DIRECTV’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 1 163 138

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked partially the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and revoked the Community trade mark in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15 CTMR
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/42

Action brought on 17 December 2013 — Unibail Management v OHIM (Representation of two lines and four stars)

(Case T-686/13)

2014/C 52/80

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Unibail Management (Paris, France) (represented by L. Bénard, A. Rudoni, O. Klimis, 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 in part the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2013 in Case R 300/2013-2 in so far as the registration of Community mark No 10 940 161 for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 was refused;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark composed of four five-pointed stars, preceded and followed by a horizontal line for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 10 940 161

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), read in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 75, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/34

Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe and Others v Commission

(Case T-646/13)

2014/C 112/46

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Citizens’ Committee for the Citizens’ Initiative Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe and Others (represented by: E. Johansson, J. Lund and C. Lund, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision C(2013)5969 final of 13 September 2013, published on 16 September 2013;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements — The applicants claim that the contested decision infringes the procedural requirements laid down in Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011. (1) — The applicants state in that regard inter alia that the Commission fails to identify among the eleven topics which form the subject matter of the citizens’ initiative those which in its opinion fall outside the framework of its powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. The Commission also does not state why those topics fall outside that framework. — As part of this plea the applicants also complain that the Commission does not state why Regulation No 211/2011 does not confer a power to register at least a part or parts of a planned citizens’ initiative.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the treaties or of a provision for implementation of the treaties — Pursuant to this plea the applicants claim the infringement of Article 11 TEU, Article 24(1) TFEU and Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation No 211/2011. — The applicants state in that regard that none of the topics in relation to which the Commission is to be called upon to submit proposals lies manifestly outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. They add that, even if one of the topics were to fall outside that framework, the Commission should have registered the planned citizens’ initiative in respect of the topics which in its opinion did not fall manifestly outside that framework.

(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).
—

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 7 October 2013, partially repeated by the decision of 14 October 2013, and which fixed the definitive allowance granted by the European Parliament to the Alliance of European National Movements in respect of 2012 at EUR 186 292,12 and consequently decided that the Alliance of European National Movements must reimburse EUR 45 476,00 having regard to the fact that EUR 231 412,80 has already been allocated to the applicant association;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 January 2014 — Goldfish and Others v Commission

(Case T-54/14)

(2014/C 71/51)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Goldfish BV (Zoutkamp, Netherlands), Heiploeg BV (Zoutkamp), Heiploeg Beheer BV (Zoutkamp), and Heiploeg Holding BV (Zoutkamp) (represented by: P. Glazener and B. Winters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul, fully or in part, the Decision insofar as it is addressed to the applicants;

— annul, or reduce, the fine imposed on the applicants;

— adopt the measures which the Court considers necessary;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants contest the decision of the Commission of 27 November 2013 in a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (AT.39633 — Shrimps).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 (1) due to the Commission’s use of secretly-recorded audio recordings as evidence of infringement of Article 101 TFEU.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 due to the Commission’s use of notes from secretly-recorded audio recordings as evidence of infringement of Article 101 TFEU.

3. Third plea in law, alleging an unlawful refusal to apply paragraph 35 of the Fining Guidelines, (2) due to the Commission refusing to take into account the inability of the applicants to pay the fine.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

(2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).
—

Within the meaning and for the purposes of Article 277 TFEU, assess the lawfulness/unlawfulness and applicability/inapplicability of Article 266.1 of the Implementing Rules for the Financial Regulation and Article 2.4.13 of the 2013 PRAG (Practical Guide to Contract Procedures for EU External Actions) by reference to the other rules on the management and award of public contracts, in so far as those provisions — regardless of the value of the contract and whether it is above the threshold established by the law in force — allow the contracting authority, after it has cancelled the tendering procedure, to enter into negotiations with one or more tenderers directly, without giving prior notification to the other tenderers which are not party to such negotiations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/22

Action brought on 13 January 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO — INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX — PROPRE FABRICATION)

(Case T-30/14)

2014/C 85/39

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger und M. Zöbisch, 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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 11 November 2013 in Case R 1749/2013-4 and authorise the publication of the application for registration of the Community trade mark No 11 642 527 for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35;

— in the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 11 November 2013 in Case R 1749/2013-4 and refer the case back to the Office so that it adopts a new decision;

— in the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 11 November 2013 in Case R 1749/2013-4;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white, including the word elements ‘BIO — INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX — PROPRE FABRICATION’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 an 35 — application for registration of Community trade mark No 11 642 527

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/51

Action brought on 4 February 2014 — LTJ Diffusion v OHIM — Arthur et Aston (ARTHUR & ASTON).

(Case T-83/14)

2014/C 112/65

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: LTJ Diffusion (Colombes, France) (represented by: S. Lederman, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arthur et Aston SAS (Giberville, France)

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 of 2 December 2013 in Case R 1963/2012-1 in so far as it ruled that the use of the earlier mark ‘ARTHUR’ No 17731 did not comply with the provisions of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— if the Court, following its case-law (judgment of 4 June 2013, Case T-514/11, ‘DECATHLON’), finds that it has no power to rule on the merits of the opposition filed by the company LTJ DIFFUSION on 14 April 2011 since the Board of Appeal has not yet adopted a position, it is also asked the following: to refer the case to the competent formation of the Court for a ruling to be made on the merits of the opposition filed by the company LTJ DIFFUSION on 14 April 2011 against the application for registration of the Community trade mark No 9509911, relating to the word sign ‘ARTHUR & ASTON’, to designate certain goods in Classes 3, 9, 14 and 25 and specifically ‘footwear, boots and shoes’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Arthur et Aston SAS

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ARTHUR & ASTON’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14 and 25 (Community trade mark application No 9 509 911)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National semi-figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘Arthur’ for goods in Class 25.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

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

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
—

Declare that, in the context of Contracts SES6-CT-2004-502596 (HyWays), SES6-CT-2005-019813 (HyApproval) and SES6-CT-2005-513542 (HarmonHy) concluded between the Commission and, inter alia, the applicant, the applicant calculated its project costs in accordance with the applicable contractual provisions, in particular Article II.19 of the General Conditions, and that the Commission has thus infringed its contractual obligations in so far as it calculated the applicant’s project costs differently when issuing debit notes No 3241314522 and No 3241315423 (HyWays); No 3241314527 and No 3241314526 (HyApproval); and No 3241314519 and No 3241313756 (HarmonHy);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/29

Action brought on 30 January 2014 — Swatch v OHIM — Panavision Europe (SWATCHBALL)

(Case T-71/14)

2014/C 129/36

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Panavision Europe Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom)

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 11 November 2013 given in Case R 470/2012-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SWATCHBALL’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6 543 524

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International Registrations and Community trade mark registrations of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘swatch’ and the word mark ‘SWATCH’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected 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 135/54

Action brought on 20 February 2014 — Kicktipp v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (kicktipp)

(Case T-135/14)

2014/C 135/70

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kicktipp GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Società Italiana Calzature Srl (Milan, Italy)

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 12 December 2013 given in Case R 1061/2012-2;

— 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 ‘kicktipp’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 8 874 281

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: Italian trademarks Nos 348 149, 905 554, 905 554 for goods in Class 25

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 135/48

Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry's New York Bar (HARRY'S NEW YORK BAR)

(Case T-84/14)

2014/C 135/61

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France)

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 14 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 1038/2012-1 and R 1045/2012-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 383 445

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registrations Nos 356 009, 320 026, 315 142, 55 6513-1066 for goods and services in Classes 25 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part in Case R 1038/2012-1 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 1045/2012-1

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 4 CTMR.
First plea in law: Infringement of Article 4(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) and of Article 108(2) TFEU

The applicant submits here that the defendant initiated the formal investigation procedure without satisfying its special duty of care to clarify the facts completely. Had the Commission carefully clarified the facts, there would have been no reason to open the formal investigation procedure.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/45

Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Morningstar v Commission

(Case T-76/14)

2014/C 135/57

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Morningstar, Inc. (Chicago, United States) (represented by: S. Kinsella, K. Daly and P. Harrison, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Commission Decision in Case COMP/39.654 — Reuters Instrument Codes, dated 20 December 2012, and published in the Official Journal on 12 November 2013 (OJ C 326, p. 4);

— Order the Commission to pay the costs; and

— Grant such other relief as the Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission Decision adopted in the framework of Case COMP/39.654 — Reuters Instrument Codes relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 EEA, concerning practices by Thomson Reuters giving rise to barriers to switching between consolidated real-time datafeeds. By the contested decision the Commission made binding upon Thomson Reuters certain commitments in accordance with Article 9 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and decided that there were no longer grounds for action. The applicant is a competitor of Thomson Reuters.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in adopting the Decision since the commitments manifestly fail to address the competition concerns identified in the Decision.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted ultra vires because it exceeded powers granted to it by the European Council and the Decision therefore lacks a proper legal basis.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision has failed to respect the principle of proportionality.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches the Commission’s duty to state reasons.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/30

Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (GentleCare)

(Case T-188/14)

2014/C 151/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Neuner and S. Walter, 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 24 January 2014 given in Case R 739/2013-5.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GentleCare’ for goods in Class 7 — Community trade mark application No 11 102 522

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(2) CTMR.
—

Consequently, uphold the claims of the appellants at first instance and, accordingly, — Annul the payslips for June 2009 in so far as those payslips constitute the initial implementation in regard to the applicants of the reform of the pension scheme decided by the Governing Council on 4 May 2009 and annul, to the same extent, all subsequent payslips and all future pension statements; — To the extent necessary, annul the decisions rejecting the applications for administrative review and complaints brought under the grievance procedure dated 28 August and 17 December 2009 respectively; — Consequently, — Order the defendant to pay the difference between the salary and pension resulting from the decision of the Governing Council of 4 May 2009 and that paid in application of the preceding pension scheme, that difference to be increased by interest for late payment with effect from 15 June 2009 and then on the 15th of each month until the difference has been completely made up, the rate of interest being the ECB rate, increased by three points, — Order the defendant to pay damages for the loss suffered by reason of the loss of purchasing power, that loss to be assessed ex aequo et bono, and, on a provisional basis, at 1% of the monthly salary of each applicant; — Order the European Central Bank to pay all the costs;