ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/27

Action brought on 6 September 2013 — Systran v Commission

(Case T-481/13)

2013/C 336/57

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Systran SA (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Hoss, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions of 5 July 2013 and 21 August 2013 taken by the European Commission, alternatively, by the European Union;

— order the European Commission and the European Union to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decisions of the Commission by which, following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 April 2013 in Case C-103/11 P Commission v Systran and Systran Luxembourg [2013] ECR I-0000, it recovers compensatory interest, plus interest for delay from 19 August 2013, on the amount that the Commission had paid to the applicant by way of damages following the judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 in Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission [2010] ECR II-6083, annulled by the judgment of the Court of Justice.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging the Commission's lack of competence to take the contested decisions, in so far as the Commission lacks competence to grant compensatory interest to itself, since such interest may be granted solely by a by a court where the interest is intended to compensate for damage resulting from a party’s failure to carry out its obligations. The applicant claims that the grant of compensatory interest is not part of the realisation of the effects of a judgment of the Court of Justice.

2. Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of general principles of European law, both in the light of the grant of interest and the general principle of the prohibition of unjust enrichment. The applicant claims that: — the Commission infringed the general principle of European law, alternatively, the principle common to the Member States relating to the grant of compensatory interest, by granting compensatory interest to itself, in the absence of any harmful event attributable to the applicant; — the Commission infringed the general principle of the prohibition of unjust enrichment by imposing on a legal person governed by private law an obligation not provided for by the Treaties and, in any event, in the light of the calculation of the amount of interest, by granting an amount of flat-rate interest increased by 2 % in respect of inflation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/66

Action brought on 30 September 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-527/13)

2013/C 344/121

Language of the procedure: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, P. Grasso, lawyers, and G. Palmieri, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2013) 4046 final of 17 July 2013, notified on 18 July 2013, on State Aid SA.33726 (11/C) [ex SA.33726 (11/NN)] granted by Italy (Deferral of payment of the milk levy in Italy);

— in the alternative, annul the part of that decision (points (b),(c) and (d) of Article 2(4)) by which the obligation to recover aid is extended to cover the aid resulting from Council Decision No 2003/530/EC;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian Government contests Commission Decision C(2013) 4046 final of 17 July 2013, notified on 18 July 2013, relating to State Aid SA.33726 (11/C) [ex SA.33726 (11/NN)] granted by Italy (Deferral of payment of the milk levy in Italy).

By that decision, the European Commission:

— declared that the deferral of payment of the milk levy due by 31 December 2010, adopted by Italy in that very month (December 2010), constitutes – also on account of the procedure to be followed for its implementation – State aid incompatible with the internal market;

— declared that that deferral of payment amounted to failure to respect the conditions laid down in Council Decision No 2003/530/EC, constituting in consequence State aid incompatible with the internal market;

— directed Italy to arrange to have the incompatible aid, together with interest, refunded by the beneficiaries of the deferral of payment.

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward two pleas:

1. First plea: infringement of Article 3(7) of Commission Regulation No 1535/2007 of 20 December 2007 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the sector of agricultural production (OJ 2007 L 337, p. 35). — The applicant claims in that regard that the contested decision applied that provision on the basis of the erroneous assumption that the existing aid, authorised by Council Decision No 2003/530/EC of 16 July 2003, constituted the maximum amount that could be granted to milk producers and that, accordingly, any additional aid measure — even falling within the de minimis exception (and even entailing only an absolutely marginal amount) — would mean that, ipso jure, the aggregate amount of the aid would exceed the permissible level.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/57

Action brought on 19 August 2013 — Métropole Gestion v OHIM — Metropol (METROPOL)

(Case T-431/13)

2013/C 344/103

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Métropole Gestion (Paris, France) (represented by: M.-A. Roux Steinkühler, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Metropol Investment Financial Company Ltd (Moscow, Russia)

Form of order sought

— Declare the action admissible and well-founded, and, as a consequence;

— Annul in part the contested decision, in that it refused to declare the invalidity of the Community trade mark at issue based on the marks Nos 02 3 167 081, No 02 3 167 084 and No 794 040, and the other unregistered signs;

— Uphold the contested decision, in that it declared the invalidity in part of mark No 3 590 981 on the basis of the earlier mark No 02 3 143 685;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘METROPOL’ for the goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36 and 42 — Community trade mark No 3 590 981

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Metropol Investment Financial Company Ltd

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National word mark ‘METROPOLE’ and national and international figurative marks ‘METROPOLE gestion’ for the services in Class 36

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application is rejected in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/35

Action brought on 15 October 2013 — Aderans v OHIM — Ofer (VITALHAIR)

(Case T-548/13)

2013/C 367/62

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aderans Company Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gerhard Ofer (Troisdorf, Germany)

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 1 August 2013 in Case R 1467/2012-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘VITALHAIR’ for goods in Classes 3, 21 and 26 — Community trade mark application No 7 254 378

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gerhard Ofer

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Community word mark ‘Haar-Vital’ and the German figurative mark ‘HAARVITAL’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 26 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42(2) and (3) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 352/16

Action brought on 2 September 2013 — GEA Group v OHIM (engineering for a better world)

(Case T-488/13)

2013/C 352/30

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by J. Schneiders, 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 Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2013 (Case R 0935/2012-4;

— 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: the word mark ‘engineering for a better world’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 35, 37, 39, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 10 244 416

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 377/19

Action brought on 8 November 2013 — Shire Pharmaceutical Contracts v Commission

(Case T-583/13)

2013/C 377/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shire Pharmaceutical Contracts (Hampshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Vickers, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision contained in the letter of the European Commission dated 2 September 2013, confirmed by the letter dated 18 October 2013, refusing eligibility for a reward for a voluntary pediatric investigation plan under Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 (1); and

— Order the defendant to bear the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by fundamental errors in law in the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of legal certainty.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (OJ 2006 L 378, p. 1)
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the Commission’s reasoning was not clear and unequivocal and, consequently, it did not allow the interested parties to know the reasons for the contested regulation. The applicant claims that: — first, obligation to state reasons for the contested regulation was even more fundamental because the Commission had, for the adoption of the contested regulation, a wide discretion and, — secondly, the Commission was bound to develop its arguments in a clear manner where, by fixing export refunds on poultrymeat at a zero rate, the contested regulation went significantly further than the previous regulations in that sector.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/37

Action brought on 27 November 2013 — Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission

(Case T-623/13)

2014/C 24/69

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martín, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 18 September 2013;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings; and

— in addition, as a measure of organisation of procedure, order the Commission to submit to the Court the documents to which it has denied access, so that the Court may examine them and ascertain whether the submissions made in the application are correct.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present proceedings, the applicant seeks annulment of the express rejection of its request for access to certain documents. The implied rejection of that request is the subject-matter of Case T-419/13 Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in that case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/29

Action brought on 11 November 2013 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile v OHIM — Norwood Industries (NORTHWOOD professional forest equipment)

(Case T-592/13)

2014/C 24/52

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ratioparts-Ersatzteile-Vertriebs GmbH (Euskirchen, Germany) (represented by: M. Koch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Norwood Industries (Kilworthy, Canada)

Form of order sought

— Amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 28 August 2013 (case R 356/2013-2) so as to dismiss in its entirety Opposition B1771461; and

— Order the opponent to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the respondent in the appeal to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Ratioparts-Ersatzteile-Vertriebs GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘NORTHWOOD professional forest equipment’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 20, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark No 9 412 776

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Norwood Industries

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘NORWOOD’ for goods in Class 7

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/27

Action brought on 8 November 2013 — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure v OHIM — Gauff (Gauff THE ENGINEERS WITH THE BROADER VIEW)

(Case T-586/13)

2014/C 24/49

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: G. Schneider-Rothhaar, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision taken by the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Appeal Case R 118/2003-1);

— refer the case back to OHIM with the recommendation to restore it to its previous state;

— order OHIM to pay the costs including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘THE ENGINEERS WITH THE BROADER VIEW’ for goods and services in Classes 11, 19, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 and 42 — application for Community trade mark No 10 028 082

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word sign and the Community word sign ‘Gauff’ and the German figurative mark and the Community figurative mark ‘GAUFF’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: rejection of the application for restoring the case to its previous state and rejection of the action as being inadmissible

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 81 of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/26

Action brought on 4 November 2013 — Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB)

(Case T-581/13)

2014/C 24/47

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Maitland-Walker, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

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 25 July 2013 given in Case R 1374/2012-2;

— Award the applicant the costs of the present proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 642 621

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 registrations Nos 8 456 469, 5 482 484, 532 895 and 364 257

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/26

Action brought on 9 December 2013 — Enercon v OHIM (Shades of the colour green)

(Case T-655/13)

2014/C 39/47

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by R. Böhm, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2013 in Case R 0247/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark representing shades of the colour green for goods in Classes 7, 16 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 11055811

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/11

Action brought on 30 October 2013 — Lesaffre et Compagnie v OHIM — Louis Baking Company (BAKING CENTER BY TECHNOLINE)

(Case T-575/13)

2014/C 31/20

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Lesaffre et Compagnie (Paris, France) (represented by: T. De Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Louis Baking Company, SL (Girona, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul in its entirety the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 August 2013 in Case R 2333/2012-4; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Lesaffre in the proceedings before the General Court and before the Fourth Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Louis Baking Company, SL

Community trade mark concerned: Coloured figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BAKING CENTER By TECHNOLINE’ for goods and services in Classes 30, 35 and 42 — Application for Community trade mark No 9 195 793

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: French mark ‘BAKING CENTER’ for services in Class 41

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 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/39

Action brought on 29 November 2013 — Watch TV v Council

(Case T-639/13)

2014/C 45/68

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Watch TV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. de Visscher and M. von Kuegelgen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Council of the European Union of 30 September 2013;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union not to accept its tender submitted in respect of Lot No 1 in Contract UCA 190/11 for the provision of ‘audiovisual and multimedia services to the Council of the European Union/European Council’ (OJ 2012/S 26-041228).

In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation (1) and of Articles 131(5), 135(2) and 146(3) of the Regulation implementing the Financial Regulation, (2) in view of the fact that the Council awarded the contract to a tenderer whose tender allegedly does not meet the obligatory minimum requirements relating to the suitability of candidates, as set out in the technical specifications. The applicant claims that the Council ought, therefore, to have automatically rejected the tender which it accepted.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).