ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First plea in law: Infringement of Articles 107(1) and 108 TFEU due to erroneous classification of the special compensation regime — The applicants claim that the opening decision infringes Articles 107(1) and 108 TFEU and Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1) because the EEG-surcharge provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG) did not constitute an allocation of State resources and the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users did not constitute a waiver of State resources. — The applicants state, in this context, that the Commission based its examination on new delimiting parameters which are incompatible with the principles of previous case-law. In particular, the Commission completely waived the criterion of the specific power of disposal of State authorities, which according to settled case-law is necessary for the classification as State resources, and deemed it to be sufficient for the State legislature to affect cash flows between private parties and for the compliance by the private parties with the legal requirements to be monitored by regulatory authorities. — In addition, the Commission is bound by its decision by which it did not classify the 2000 EEG as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because there was no transfer of State resources, and therefore erred in law by classifying the 2012 EEG as a new, unlawfully implemented aid scheme. — In addition, the Commission did not adequately examine and therefore also did not realise that the exceptions for energy-intensive users are justified according to the aim, nature and scheme of the 2012 EEG and therefore did not constitute a selective advantage.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/29

Action brought on 21 May 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM (Deluxe)

(Case T-344/14)

2014/C 235/40

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by M. Kefferpütz and A. Wrage, 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 6 March 2014 in Case R 1223/2013-1;

— Declare that the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 do not preclude the publication of the mark applied for;

— Refer application No 01 1 4 27 507 back to the defendant so that the registration procedure may be resumed;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘Deluxe’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 4 27 507

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 No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/20

Action brought on 28 March 2014 — LR Health & Beauty Systems/OHIM — Robert McBride (LR nova pure.)

(Case T-202/14)

2014/C 235/27

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Robert McBride Ltd (Manchester, 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 22 January 2014 in case R 272/2013-2;

— Order the defendant and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings 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 containing the word elements ‘LR nova pure.’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark application No 9 8 51 361

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: International trade mark registration of the word mark NOVA

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) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/29

Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Turon & Ros v Commission

(Case T-394/14)

2014/C 245/40

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Inmobiliaria Turon & Ros, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.C. García Muñoz, J.I. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-392/14.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/33

Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Lithomex/OHMI — Glaubrecht Stingel (LITHOFIX)

(Case T-273/14)

2014/C 253/48

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lithomex ApS (Langeskov, Denmark) (represented by: L. Ullmann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co.KG (Wendlingen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Overturn decision R 2280/2012-5 of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17/02/2014;

— Amend the contested decision to show that the appeal against Decision No 5589 C of the Cancellation Division of 21/11/2012 is rejected;

— Condemn the intervener to pay the costs including the costs incurred during 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 LITHOFIX for goods in Classes 19 and 31 — Community trade mark registration No 7 5 04 368

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co. KG

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — International and national word marks ‘LITHOFIN’ for goods in Class 1

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The declaration of invalidity was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was upheld and the Community trade mark declared invalid for all the goods in Class 19

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) lacked a proper legal basis for the Decision and the Regulation. Arguments in support of the plea include (a) that the conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the Decision. Amongst other things: (i) The Council’s expressly invoked objectives (consolidating the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine) could not, as a matter of fact, be sustained by the Council, which then stated grounds for designation (linked to alleged embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine, which the Applicant denies) which were not consistent with, and failed to comply with, the stated or any relevant objectives of Article 21 TEU. (ii) The Decision and the Regulation are contrary to other relevant objectives identified in Article 21 in that they failed to ‘consolidate and support democracy ... [and] the principles of international law’, in particular by wrongly asserting, and acting on the basis that, the legitimate democratically elected President of Ukraine, President Yanukovych, was a ‘former President’, contrary to the law of Ukraine and International law, and by providing support for the so-called ‘interim President and government’, who have not been lawfully and democratically elected, and who took what power they have from time to time by illegal force, contrary to the rule of law, democratic principles and international law. (b) The conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V TEU. (c) There was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/32

Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Penny-Markt v OHIM — Boquoi Handels (B! O)

(Case T-364/14)

2014/C 261/56

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Penny-Markt GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and A. Wagner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Boquoi Handels OHG (Straelen, Germany)

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 21 March 2014 in Case R 1201/2013-4;

— Order the defendant 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: the figurative mark including the word element ‘B! O’ for goods in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 32 — Community trade mark No 10 038 008

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Boquoi Handels OHG

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the national and Community trade mark ‘bo’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 16, 21, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 35

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the decision of the Cancellation Division was annulled and the Community trade mark was declared invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/39

Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)

(Case T-387/14)

2014/C 261/64

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, 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 6 March 2014 given in Case R 1852/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MARKETINGCLOUD’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 10 979 359

Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by wrongly applying the principle of joint and several liability to the applicant and Prysmian in connection with the obligation to pay the fine imposed by the Commission or, in the alternative, by failing to make a suitable adjustment to that principle By its fifth plea, the applicant claims that imposing liability on the applicant jointly and severally with Prysmian not only does not achieve the objectives which the Commission seeks to pursue with regard to penalties but even directly conflicts with those objectives. In the alternative, in order to take account of the separate liability imputable to Prysmian and the applicant, the Commission should at least have allowed beneficium ordinis seu excussionis. Lastly, by failing suitably to reflect the difference between the applicant’s position and Prysmian’s position, the Commission infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment. The court hearing the case must therefore exercise its unlimited jurisdiction to annul the part of the Decision concerning the fine or, in the alternative, reformulate that part and allow beneficium ordinis seu excussionis.
—

order that the applicants and all employees made redundant of the former Olympic Airways be given by means of a Community act of direct effect, directive, regulation or other Community legal instrument the capacity to recover 100 % of the value of the bonds which were given to them in place of compensation on their compulsory redundancy-retirement from Olympic Airways and,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/37

Action brought on 17 April 2014 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face)

(Case T-242/14)

2014/C 282/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Freitag, 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 16 January 2014 given in Case R 836/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Tri-dimensional mark representing the shape of a face for goods in classes 29 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 68 762

Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009
—

After the interim measure sought in the first indent has become definitive, and after the oral hearing and the presentation of evidence relating to the determination of the total material damage in respect of which compensation is sought by the applicants in the present action, order the European Union to compensate each of the applicants for the material damaged suffered as a result of the Commission’s unlawful omission, referred to in the first subparagraph of the present action, namely, all of the actual loss (damnum emergens) and all of the loss of profit (lucrum cessans) suffered by the applicants during the period from 1 January 2012 to the date on which the Court makes the corresponding requests to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Justice of the Republic of Croatia, amounting to EUR 6 00 000 for each calendar year and for each defendant, together with late payment interest of 12 % per annum, to be calculated: — as regards the compensation for all of the actual loss, from 1 January 2012 until the date of actual payment; — as regards the compensation for all of the loss of profit suffered by the applicants during 2012, from 1 January 2013 until the date of actual payment; — as regards the compensation for all of the loss of profit suffered by the applicants during 2013, from 1 January 2014 until the date of actual payment; — as regards the compensation for all of the loss of profit suffered by the applicants during 2014, from 1 January 2015 until the date of actual payment;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/50

Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Holistic Innovation Institute v Commission

(Case T-468/14)

2014/C 292/61

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Muñiz García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should annul the decision to exclude the applicant from the eDIGIREGION project, order the applicant to be indemnified for the losses suffered, order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 3 0 55 000, or in the alternative the amount determined by the judicial expert, together with the interest accruing in accordance with the expert’s report, and expressly order that this be paid by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought against the decision to refuse to allow the applicant — an undertaking engaged principally in telecommunications, R&D and consultancy services in telecommunications, research and innovation — to participate in the European eDIGIREGION project under the Seventh Framework Programme.

In this regard, the applicant states that it has participated in developing the proposal for the eDIGIREGION project since its creation, in close connection with other entities and held a number of meetings in Brussels and several audio conferences between July 2011 and January 2012, resulting in the formation of a European Consortium which submitted a proposal for an eDIGIREGION project (Realizing the Digital Agenda through Transnational Cooperation between Regions). The applicant is partner number 5 of the Consortium with a budget of EUR 4 91 400.00 and a contribution from the Commission of EUR 4 38 165 ,00. (14,61 % of the total requested).

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the arguments put forward by the European Commission are totally unjustified, as they infringe the main requirement necessary if the latter is to be able to decide to suspend the participation of an undertaking in a project which has been positively appraised; the arguments must be clear, unequivocal and properly substantiated.

Specifically, the applicant states that it is technically and operationally prepared to participate in the eDIGIREGION Consortium, it has sufficient financial capacity to take on its share of the co-financing, and it has sufficient experience in the management and administration of projects.

In this respect, the applicant considers that there is a manifest inconsistency between what the Director General signed in the text of the letter giving notice of the suspension of the participation in the project and the arguments set out in the Annex to that letter.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/35

Action brought on 11 June 2014 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-425/14)

2014/C 303/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer, F. Heringa and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision to refuse access to documents requested by the applicant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, as communicated to the Applicant on 1 April 2014 in a letter with the reference SG.B.4/LR/rc-sg.dsg2.b.4(2014) 1029188;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision to refuse access to the Commission’s Impact Assessment Report, as well as the opinion of the Impact Assessment Board regarding the revision of the EU legal framework on environmental inspections and surveillance at national and EU level.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-424/14, ClientEarth v Commission.
—

in the alternative, uphold the applicant’s claims and declare void the provision laid down in Article 4.1 of the decision, in fine, ordering recovery of the alleged aid, for infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, since, in any event, recovery of the aid cannot be ordered with effect from before the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision to open formal proceedings, on 21 September 2011; in addition, acknowledge that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations applies to those EIGs that fulfilled the objective requirements for the application of the contested tax advantages prior to the publication of the 2006 decision in the Official Journal;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 329/21

Action brought on 14 July 2014 — Squeeze Life v OHIM — Evolution Fresh (SQUEEZE LIFE)

(Case T-523/14)

2014/C 329/29

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Squeeze Life, SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Evolution Fresh, Inc. (San Bernardino, United States)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul and declare inapplicable the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 April 2014 and, consequently, declare that: — the party that brought an appeal before the Board of Appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 20 December 2013 was Squeeze Life, S.L., and not the applicant for a Community trade mark, Evolution Fresh, Inc.; — as a consequence of the above, declare final the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 20 December 2013, and therefore, declare Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 70 966‘SQUEEZE LIFE’ rejected in respect of the goods in Class 32 and, in part, the services in Class 35;

— stay conversion procedure No 8311048, which is pending before the ‘Division of Recordals’ of OHIM, until final judgment is delivered in the present proceedings, and remit the appropriate communication to the ‘Division of Recordals’ in order for it to stay the conversion proceedings;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Evolution Fresh, Inc.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘SQUEEZE LIFE’ for goods and services in Classes 32, 35 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 70 966

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word marks ‘ZUMIT SQUEEZE LIFE’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 31, 32 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Took note of the withdrawal of the Community trade mark application and closed the appeal and opposition proceedings

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 73 of Regulation No 207/2009;