ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

infringement of the rights of defence, the principle of a fair trail, and the principle of effective judicial protection, in so far as the Council has not responded to the applicant’s request, and has therefore not explained why the applicant’s name was added to the sanctions’ lists, neither produced the evidence justifying his inclusion in these lists, nor offered him the opportunity of being heard orally, before and after, the disputed restrictive measures had been adopted;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/26

Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Knauf Insulation Technology v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristaleria (ECOSE TECHNOLOGY)

(Case T-324/12)

2012/C 295/47

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Knauf Insulation Technology (Visé, Belgium) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Saint Gobain Cristaleria, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 2012 in joined cases R 1193/2011-5 and R 1426/2011-5 insofar as it has declared the opponent’s opposition successful against the CTM application for part of the goods and services applied for;

— Order the defendant and — if applicable — the Opponent to jointly and severally pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ECOSE TECHNOLOGY’, for goods and services in classes 1, 2, 3, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 40 — Community trade mark application No W 998610

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: Spanish trade mark registration No 2556409 of the word mark ‘ECOSEC FACHADAS’, for goods in classes 17 and 19

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the contested decision for the remainder

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 273/16

Action brought on 9 July 2012 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — A Colmeia do Minho (FAIRGLOBE)

(Case T-300/12)

2012/C 273/28

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter and A. Berger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: A Colmeia do Minho Lda (Aldeia de Paio Pires, Portugal)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 April 2012 in case R 1981/2010-2 insofar as the opposition was upheld;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

— Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Office.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘FAIRGLOBE’, for goods and services in classes 18, 20, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 6896261

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: Portuguese trade mark registration No 221497 of the figurative mark ‘GLOBO PORTUGAL’, for goods in class 30; Portuguese trade mark registration No 221498 of the figurative mark ‘GLOBO PORTUGAL’, for goods in class 29; Portuguese trade mark registration No 311549 of the word mark ‘GLOBO’, for goods in class 29; Portuguese trade mark registration No 337398 of the word mark ‘GLOBO’, for goods in classes 2, 29 and 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially upheld the appeal and partially dismissed it

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 15(1) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) and (4) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95;
—

that the contested Council’s acts were issued in the absence of any legal basis and infringe the duty to state reasons, the right to a fair hearing, the right to an effective judicial protection and the right to property; further they are in breach of the principle of proportionality and violate the applicant’s good name.
2.

By their second plea in law, the applicants allege an infringement of the duty to state reasons. The Council merely made unfounded claims in the contested measures and infringed that duty, which is imposed on the institutions of the European Union by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In that regard, the applicants submit that the Council relied on the imprecise notion of participation in the regime, of which there is no definition in the Council measures regarding the situation in Syria. In the light of the lack of clear and precise grounds on the part of the Council, the General Court is not able to review the lawfulness of the contested measures.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/14

Action brought on 20 August 2012 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — Planet GDZ (PRO PLANET)

(Case T-373/12)

2012/C 319/27

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Planet GDZ AG (Tagelswangen, Switzerland)

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 June 2012 in Case R 1350/2011-1;

— 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 including the word element ‘PRO PLANET’ for goods in Classes 6, 17 and 19

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Planet GDZ AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international registration of the word mark ‘PLANET’ for goods in Classes 6 and 19

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/28

Action brought on 8 August 2012 — Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC Kindii)

(Case T-364/12)

2012/C 355/60

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Harper Hygienics S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, legal adviser)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clinique Laboratories LLC (New York, United States)

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 May 2012 (Case R 1135/2001-2) refusing registration of ‘CLEANIC Kindii’ as a Community trade mark for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 16;

— amend the contested decision by registration of the trade mark for all the goods and services applied for;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Harper Hygienics

Community trade mark concerned: figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘CLEANIC Kindii’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 16

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Clinique Laboratories LLC

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade marks No 54 429 for goods in Classes 3, 14, 25 and 42 and No 2 294 429 for goods in Classes 35 and 42, and national (Polish) mark No 51 732 for goods in Classes 3 and 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) as regards establishment of the similarity of the trade marks and of the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers, and infringement of Article 8(5) of that regulation

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/32

Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO)

(Case T-393/12)

2012/C 355/67

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kenzo SA (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2012 in case R 1659/2011-2; and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KENZO’, for goods in class 33 — Community trade mark application No 6334544

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 registration No 720706 for the word mark ‘KENZO’, for goods and services in classes 3, 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the CTM application in its entirety

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/15

Action brought on 22 August 2012 — France Télécom v Commission

(Case T-385/12)

2012/C 311/20

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: France Télécom (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Hautbourg and S. Cochard-Quesson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision;

— Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 9403 final of 20 December 2011 declaring compatible with the internal market, under certain conditions, the aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom concerning the reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom (State aid No C 25/2008 (ex NN 23/2008)).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging, principally, errors of law and assessment and infringement of the duty to state reasons since the Commission categorised as State aid, within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the reduction in the contribution to be paid to the State in respect of pensions awarded to officials of France Télécom. The applicant argues that the Commission made these errors: — by finding that there was an economic advantage; — by taking the view that the measure is selective; — by taking the view that the measure is liable to distort competition; and — by finding that it was State aid despite the fact that the Commission accepts that the advantage was neutralised at least until 31 December 2010 by payment of an exceptional lump-sum contribution.

2. Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, errors of law and assessment in that the Commission made the compatibility of the alleged aid subject to the conditions laid down in Article 2 of the contested decision. The applicant submits that the Commission made these errors by taking the view that the applicant is subject to lower social charges than its competitors and by refusing to apply the precedent of ‘La Poste’ to the France Télécom proceeding.

3. Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, errors in assessment and infringement of the duty to state reasons in the assessment of the period during which the aid defined by the contested decision was neutralised by the exceptional lump-sum contribution. The applicant submits that the Commission made these errors: — by including the charges of compensation and over-compensation in the calculation of the reduction in the charges which follows from the reduction in the employer’s contribution; — by holding that the exceptional lump-sum contribution should be capitalised at the discount rate of 5,53 % instead of 7 %.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/35

Action brought on 20 September 2012 — HP Health Clubs Iberia v OHIM — Shiseido (ZENSATIONS)

(Case T-416/12)

2012/C 355/73

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: HP Health Clubs Iberia, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Serrat Viñas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shiseido Company Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

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 June 2012 in Case R 2212/2010-1;

— reject the opposition brought by Shiseido Company Ltd;

— refer the case back to OHIM for it to register the mark is respect of which registration was sought for all the contested services; and

— order the defendant and the other party involved in the case to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings and in the earlier proceedings before OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘ZENSATIONS’ for services in Classes 35 and 44 — Community trade mark No 5 778 303

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Shiseido Company Ltd

Mark or sign cited in opposition: word mark ‘ZEN’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 21 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal upheld

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 and Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

The first plea in law alleges infringement of the following principles: the duty to state reasons, the protection of legitimate expectations and the rights of the defence, the applicant having been informed orally of the contested decision withdrawing with immediate effect the documents giving him access to Commission buildings and that decision being referred to only in the minutes of a meeting between the applicant and the Commission’s human resources and security department. The applicant claims that the contested decision does not refer to the factors which led the Commission to take such a decision and that the legal basis of the decision was communicated to the applicant by an erratum issued after the decision took effect.
—

require the Commission to provide, in accordance with Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the documents, calculations and other matters of law and/or fact that served as the basis to grant the requests for inability to pay of Proderac, CB, ITAS, OriMartin and Siderúrgica Latina Martin and/or to accept the reduction in the fine of AreclorMittal;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/38

Action brought on 26 September 2012 — VTZ and Others v Council

(Case T-432/12)

2012/C 366/77

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO) (Volzhsky, Russia); Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO) (Taganrog, Russia); Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) (Kamensk-Uralsky, Russia); and Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) (Polevskoy, Russia) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni, G. Coppo and C. Van Hemelrijck, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul, as far as the applicants are concerned, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 of 26 June 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia (OJ 2012 L 174, p. 5); and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that by cumulating imports from Russia with imports from Ukraine, the Council manifestly erred in the appraisal of the facts, violated Article 3(4) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1) (the ‘Basic Regulation’) and infringed the principle of equal treatment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that by concluding that the repeal of the measures is likely to lead to injury recurring the Council infringed the principle of equal treatment and manifestly erred in the appraisal of facts and, therefore, infringed Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Articles 9(4) and 21 of the Basic Regulation and the principle of equal treatment by committing a manifest error of assessment as concerns the analysis of the Union interest.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and the applicants’ rights of defence by failing to examine the arguments raised by the applicants during the investigation and to provide the applicants with the disclosure of essential facts and considerations concerning the case, the duty to state reasons and the principle of sound administration and the rights of defence of the applicants by providing the Member States with information on the case prior to receiving any comments from the applicants and by consulting the Anti-Dumping Advisory Committee before the applicants had been heard.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on Protection Against Dumped Imports from Countries not Members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L343, p. 51), as amended.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/20

Action brought on 18 October 2012 — Stromberg Menswear v OHIM — Leketoy Stormberg Inter (STORMBERG)

(Case T-457/12)

2013/C 63/40

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Stromberg Menswear Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Tsoutsanis, lawyer, and C. Tulley, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leketoy Stormberg Inter AS (Kristiansand S, Norway)

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 3 August 2012 in case R 428/2012-4;

— Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2012 in case R 428/2012-4 and grant the request for re-establishment of rights, and i) primarily, annul the decision of OHIM to allow conversion, or, ii) alternatively, allow Stromberg Menswear to appeal the decision of OHIM to allow the conversion and refer the appeal back to the Board of Appeal; and

— Order OHIM to pay any and all costs and legal fees incurred by Stromberg Menswear in connection with the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘STORMBERG’, for goods and services in class 25 — Community trade mark registration No 2557155

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the cancellation proceedings closed following a surrender of the contested CTM by its proprietor

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal as inadmissible

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Articles 57 to 60 of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 48(1)(c) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Article 81 of Council Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/27

Action brought on 10 October 2012 — Davril v Council and Commission

(Case T-448/12)

2012/C 379/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Philippe Davril (Épargnes, France) (represented by: C.-É. Gudin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Award full compensation for the damage sustained by virtue of the monetary penalties imposed, that is to say, the sum of EUR 174 900;

— Award full compensation of the non-material damage sustained by him, that is to say, the sum of EUR 100 000;

— Order the Council and the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied upon in Cases T-195/11 Cahier and Others v Council and Commission (1) and T-458/11 Riche v Council and Commission. (2)

(1) OJ 2011 C 173, p. 14.

(2) OJ 2011 C 298, p. 28.