ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/24

Action brought on 4 October 2013 — Panrico v OHIM — HDN Development (Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS)

(Case T-534/13)

2014/C 9/40

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HDN Development Corp. (Frankfort, United States of America)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare the present action admissible;

— set aside the decision of 25 July 2013 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in Case R 623/2011-4, notified to the applicant on 29 July 2013; and

— declare invalid Community trade mark No 1 298 785‘KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUTS’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark ‘Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS’ for products and services in Classes 25, 30 and 42 — Registered Community trade mark No 1 298 785

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: HDN Development Corp.

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of that regulation

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismissal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of that regulation
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/35

Action brought on 20 November 2013 — AIC v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)

(Case T-617/13)

2014/C 24/66

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: AIC S.A. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ACV Manufacturing (Seneffe, Belgium)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2013 given in Case R 688/2012-3;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The design for a product described as ‘heat exchanger inserts’ — Registered Community Design No 1 137 152-0002

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the design did not fulfil the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2), in conjunction with Articles 5 and 6 and in particular Article 8(1) and (2) CDR

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 4(2) CDR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/28

Action brought on 7 November 2013 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — A. Weber (JETROC)

(Case T-588/13)

2014/C 24/51

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (Gladbeck, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: A. Weber SA (Rouhling, 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 10 June28 August 2013 given in Case R 257/2013-2

— Order the defendant to bear 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 ‘JETROC’ for goods in Classes 1, 17 and 19 — International Registration No 940 180 designating the European Union

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: Likelihood of confusion pursuant to Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with 8(1)(b) CTMR

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) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/12

Action brought on 8 November 2013 — Canal + and Canal + France v OHIM — Euronews (News+)

(Case T-591/13)

2014/C 31/21

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicants: Canal + SA (Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France) and Canal + France (Issy-Les-Moulineaux) (represented by: L. Barissat, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Euronews (Ecully, France)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— rule that there is a likelihood of confusion or association within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 between the trade mark applied for, NEWS+, and the earlier French word mark ACTU+ No 063 457 667 in respect of the contested services;

— amend paragraphs 23 to 35 of the decision of the Board of Appeal dated 9 September 2013 and refuse registration of the mark NEWS+, applied for in application No 9 141 003;

— in the alternative, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 9 September 2013, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed, in breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, the contested decision rejecting the opposition filed against the application for a Community trade mark NEWS+ No 9 141 003 on the basis of the earlier mark ACTU+ No 063 457 667.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Euronews

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘News+’ for services in Classes 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 9 141 003

Proprietors of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicants

Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark ‘ACTU+’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28, 35, 38, 39 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/30

Action brought on 15 November 2013 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)

(Case T-598/13)

2014/C 24/55

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sanctuary Brands LLC (New Canaan, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Richter International Ltd (Scarborough, Canada)

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 7 August 2013 given in Case R 1115/2012-1;

— 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 figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘TAILORBYRD’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 9 325 549

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Non-registered figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘TAILORBYRD’, non-registered word mark and trade name ‘TAILORBYRD’ and the company name ‘Tailorbyrd, LLC’, used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom for ‘clothing, shirts’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/21

Action brought on 15 November 2013 — Emsibeth v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Nael)

(Case T-596/13)

2014/C 39/37

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Emsibeth SpA (Verona, Italy) (represented by: A. Arpaia, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the General Court should:

— set aside the contested decision; and

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community mark sought: the figurative mark ‘Nael’, for goods in class 3 — application for registration No 9726894

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Peek & Cloppenburg KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘Mc Neal’, for goods in class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision and rejection of the application for registration of the mark

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/09.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/15

Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Steinbeck v OHIM — Alfred Sternjakob (BE HAPPY)

(Case T-709/13)

2014/C 61/27

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Steinbeck GmbH (Fulda, Germany) (represented by: M. Heinrich and M. Fischer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG (Frankenthal, 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 17 October 2013 in Case R 32/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal 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 ‘BE HAPPY’ for goods in Classes 16, 21, 28 and 30 — Community trade mark No 5 310 057

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of that regulation

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/37

Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling collection de lingerie)

(Case T-625/13)

2014/C 45/65

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (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: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, 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 17 September 2013 given in Case R 1502/2012-2;

— 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 figurative mark claiming the colour green containing the verbal element ‘Darjeeling collection de lingerie’ for Classes 25, 35 and 38 — the Community trade mark application No 9 466 228

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community collective trade mark registration No 4 325 718 of the word mark ‘DARJEELING’ for goods in Class 30; Community collective trade mark registration No 8 674 327 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DARJEELING’

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.
2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging, first, an error in law in the definition of the extent of the power of review of the appointing authority and of the Civil Service Tribunal with regard to the decisions of selection boards, and the Civil Service Tribunal’s power of judicial review and, second, a clear distortion of the subject-matter of the proceedings and a breach of the adversarial principle (concerning paragraphs 50 to 52 of the judgment under appeal). The Commission submits that the Civil Service Tribunal applied an erroneous test of judicial review to the decisions before it, namely decisions of the appointing authority, thus exceeding the limits of its judicial review.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/17

Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Gold Crest v OHIM (MIGHTY BRIGHT)

(Case T-714/13)

2014/C 61/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gold Crest LLC (Santa Barbara, United States) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

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

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 8 October 2013 given in Case R 2038/2012-2;

— Declare the Community trade mark applied for eligible for registration;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MIGHTY BRIGHT’ for goods and services in Class 11 — Community trade mark application No 10 853 141

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 65(2) CTMR.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Chair Entertainment Group v OHIM — Libelle (SHADOW COMPLEX)

(Case T-717/13)

(2014/C 71/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Chair Entertainment Group LLC (Utah, United States of America) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Libelle AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

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 1 October 2013 given in Case R 776/2011-2;

— 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 ‘SHADOW COMPLEX’ for goods and services in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 8 235 434

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 ‘DBShadow’ for goods and services in Classes 9 et 42 — Community trade mark registration No 1 457 944, the word mark ‘BusinessShadow’ for goods and services in Classes 9 et 42 — Community trade mark registration No 3 749 439, the German word mark ‘BusinessShadow’ for goods and services in Classes 9 et 42 and the German word mark ‘FSShadow’ for goods and services in Classes 9 et 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

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 52/38

Appeal brought on 6 December 2013 by Kari Wahlström against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 October 2013 in Case F-116/12, Wahlström v Frontex

(Case T-653/13 P)

2014/C 52/74

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Kari Wahlström (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 October 2013 dismissing its application;

— grant the forms of order sought at first instance, as the appellant contends that final judgment may be given on the matter;

— order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its appeal, the appellant seeks annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) dismissing its action that sought, first, annulment of the appellant’s assessment report for the year 2010 and, secondly, a claim for damages.

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law in that it found that the absence of dialogue between the assessor and the appellant in the context of the assessment for the year 2010 was a non-substantial procedural irregularity (concerning points 38 et seq. of the judgment under appeal). The appellant claims that: — on the one hand, the CST disregarded the existing case-law; — on the other hand, by basing the grounds of the judgment under appeal on the context in which the assessment report had been prepared and not solely on issue of whether holding a formal dialogue was likely to affect the procedure, the CST exceeded the margins of its judicial review by encroaching on the powers of administrative discretion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/39

Action brought on 31 December 2013 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)

(Case T-722/13)

2014/C 112/52

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation 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 Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 October 2013 given in Case R 1960/2012-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DIRECTV’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark registration No 100 750

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: Partially revoked CTM registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and revoked CTM registration in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/25

Action brought on 31 December 2013 — Ipatau v Council

(Case T-694/13)

2014/C 93/43

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vadzim Ipatau (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in the context of Case T-693/13 Mikhalchanka v Council.
—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the Decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the aid; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/38

Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Red Bull v OHIM — Automobili Lamborghini (Representation of two bulls)

(Case T-73/14)

2014/C 102/59

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, J. Fuhrmann and A. Renck, lawyers, and I. Fowler, solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Automobili Lamborghini SpA (Sant’ Agata Bolognese, Italy)

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 in Case R 1263/2012-1;

— order the defendant and, in the event of the formal intervention, also the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Figurative mark representing two bulls for goods in Class 12 (Community trade mark No 3 629 342)

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Automobili Lamborghini SpA

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for revocation was granted

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009