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

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 — CEWE Stiftung v OHIM (SMILECARD)

(Case T-484/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SMILECARD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2014/C 395/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: CEWE Stiftung & Co. KGaA, formerly CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG (Oldenburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2012 (Case R 2279/2011-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign SMILECARD as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders CEWE Stiftung & Co. KGaA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2014 — Energetický a průmyslový and EP Investment Advisors v Commission

(Case T-272/12) (1)

(Competition - Administrative procedure - Decision finding a refusal to submit to an inspection and imposing a fine - Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Presumption of innocence - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)

(2015/C 016/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Energetický a průmyslový holding a.s. (Brno, Czech Republic); and EP Investment Advisors s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented initially by K. Desai, Solicitor, J. Schmidt and M. Peristeraki, and subsequently by J Schmidt, R. Klotz and M. Hofmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Antoniadis and R. Sauer, and subsequently by R. Sauer and C. Vollrath, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1999 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (refusal to submit to an inspection) (Case COMP/39793 — EPH and Others).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Energetický a průmyslový holding a.s. and EP Investment Advisors s.r.o. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 448/20

Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — Popp and Zech v OHIM — Müller-Boré & Partner (MB)

(Case T-463/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark MB - Earlier Community figurative mark MB&P - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2014/C 448/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Eugen Popp (Munich, Germany) and Stefan M. Zech (Munich) (represented by: C. Rohnke and M. Jacob initially, then M. Jacob and F. Thiering)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte (Munich) (represented by: T. Koerl and E. Celenk initially, then K. Kern and B. Maneth, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2012 (Case R 506/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte, on the one hand, and Eugen Popp and Stefan M. Zech, on the other hand.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Eugen Popp and Stefan M. Zech to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96/13

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-500/12) (1)

((State aid - Irish tax on air passengers - Lower rate for destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Selective nature - Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid - Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 096/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Barrister, E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Aer Lingus Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: K. Bacon, D. Scannell, D. Bailey, Barristers, and A. Burnside, Solicitor)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, A. Joyce and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Regan, SC, and B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland (OJ 2013 L 119, p. 30).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland, in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid from the beneficiaries for an amount which is set at EUR 8 per passenger in recital 70 of that decision;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs, as well as half of the costs incurred by Ryanair Ltd;

4. Orders Ryanair to pay half of its own costs;

5. Orders Aer Lingus Ltd and Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-111/12) (1)

(Cohesion Fund - Reduction of the financial assistance - Time-limit for adopting a decision)

(2015/C 073/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, abogado del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia, acting as Agent, and initially by J. Rivas Andrés and X.M. García García, and subsequently by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2011) 9990 of 22 December 2011 concerning the reduction of the assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund to the projects ‘Solid waste disposal management in the autonomous community of Extremadura — 2001’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PE.043), ‘Water supply and sewer systems in the Duero river basin — 2001’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PE.070), ‘Solid waste disposal management in the autonomous community of Valencia — 2001 — Group II’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PE.026) and ‘Sanitation systems and waste water treatment in Bierzo Bajo’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PE.036).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. annuls Commission Decision C (2011) 9990 of 22 December 2011 concerning the reduction of the assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund to the projects ‘Solid waste disposal management in the autonomous community of Extremadura — 2001’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PE.043), ‘Water supply and sewer systems in the Duero river basin — 2001’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PE.070), ‘Solid waste disposal management in the autonomous community of Valencia — 2001 — Group II’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PE.026) and ‘Sanitation systems and waste water treatment in Bierzo Bajo’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PE.036);

2. orders the commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/29

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2015 — CHEMK and KF v Council

(Case T-169/12) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia - Partial interim review - Calculation of the dumping margin - Change of circumstances - Lasting nature))

(2015/C 198/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) (Chelyabinsk, Russia); and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (Novokuznetsk, Russia) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted initially by G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Berrisch and N. Chesaites, Barrister, and lastly by D. Gerardin, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by H. van Vliet, M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, and subsequently by M. França, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents); and Euroalliages (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Prost and M.-S. Dibling, lawyers)

Re:

Application for the annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 60/2012 of 16 January 2012 terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia (OJ 2012 L 22, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3) Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs;

4) Orders Euroalliages to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/46

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2015 — Vestel Iberia and Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission

(Joined Cases T-249/12 and T-269/12) (1)

((Action for annulment - Customs union - Post-clearance entry in the accounts and remission of import duties - Colour television receivers originating in Turkey - Application for remission of customs duties submitted by two importers - Commission’s referral of the national authorities to a decision concerning another importer - Article 871(2) and (6) and Article 905(2) and (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 138/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Vestel Iberia, SL (Madrid, Spain) (Case T-249/12); and Makro autoservicio mayorista SA (Madrid) (Case T-269/12) (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, abogado del Estado)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 22 final of 18 January 2010 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and that remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Joins Cases T-249/12 and T-269/12 for the purposes of the present judgment;

2) Dismisses the actions as inadmissible;

3) Orders Vestel Iberia, SL and Makro autoservicio mayorista SA to pay the costs;

4) Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/15

Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2015 — Plantavis and NEM v Commission and EFSA

(Case T-334/12) (1)

((Consumer protection - Health claims made on foods - Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 - Action for annulment - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern - Admissibility - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Plea of illegality - Register of health claims))

(2015/C 245/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Plantavis GmbH (Berlin, Germany); and NEM, Verband mittelständischer europäischer Hersteller und Distributoren von Nahrungsergänzungsmitteln & Gesundheitsprodukten eV (Laudert, Germany) (represented by: T. Büttner, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and S. Grünheid, acting as Agents); and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, acting as Agent, and by R. Van der Hout and A. Köhler, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant European Commission: European Parliament (represented by: J. Rodrigues and P. Schonard, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants, European Commission and EFSA: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and I. Šulce, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9), and, secondly, of Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2012 L 136, p. 1), and of the Register of nutrition and health claims made on food, published on the website of the Commission.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Plantavis GmbH and NEM, Verband mittelständischer europäischer Hersteller und Distributoren von Nahrungsergänzungsmitteln & Gesundheitsprodukten eV to bear their own costs and, in addition, to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA);

3. Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/41

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Einhell Germany and Others v Commission

(Case T-73/12) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain compressors originating in China - Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid - Determination of the export price - Deduction of anti-dumping duties - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))

(2016/C 048/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Einhell Germany AG (Landau an der Isar, Germany); Hans Einhell Nederlands BV (Breda, Netherlands); Einhell France SAS (Villepinte, France); Hans Einhell Österreich GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, K. Talabér-Ritz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decisions K(2011) 8831 final, C(2011) 8825 final, C(2011) 8828 final and K(2011) 8810 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China, and, in the event that the General Court should annul the contested decisions, for the maintenance in force of the effects of those decisions until the Commission has adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in this case.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decisions K(2011) 8831 final, C(2011) 8825 final, C(2011) 8828 final and K(2011) 8810 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as that article does not grant Einhell Germany AG, Hans Einhell Nederlands BV, Einhell France SAS and Hans Einhell Österreich GmbH a refund of the anti-dumping duties unduly paid beyond the amounts referred to therein;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.
1.

Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus in so far as they relate to Mr Yury Aleksandrovich Chyzh, Triple TAA, NefteKhimTrading STAA, Askargoterminal ZAT, Bereza Silicate Products Plant AAT, Variant TAA, Triple-Dekor STAA, KvartsMelProm SZAT, Altersolutions SZAT, Prostoremarket SZAT, AquaTriple STAA, Rakovsky brovar TAA, TriplePharm STAA and Triple-Veles TAA;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 — Bacardi v EUIPO — Palírna U Zeleného stromu (42 BELOW)

(Case T-435/12) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark 42 BELOW - Non-registered earlier national figurative mark VODKA 42 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Use in the course of trade - Application of national law by EUIPO))

(2018/C 445/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bacardi Co. Ltd (Vaduz, Liechtenstein) (represented initially by M. Reinisch and subsequently by A. Parassina, L. Rigas and L. Lorenc, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s., formerly Granette & Starorežná Distilleries a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by T. Chleboun, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 July 2012 (Case R 2100/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Granette & Starorežná Distilleries and Bacardi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bacardi Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/27

Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission

(Case T-267/12) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - International air freight forwarding services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price - Evidence contained in an application for immunity - Protection of the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients - Code of Conduct rules on the duty of loyalty and prohibition on double representation - Fiduciary duties - Whether unlawful conduct can be attributed - Choice of companies - Fines - Proportionality - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Equal treatment - Cooperation - Partial immunity from a fine - Unlimited jurisdiction - Settlement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines))

(2016/C 136/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Deutsche Bahn and Others (Berlin, Germany), Schenker AG (Essen, Germany), Schenker China Ltd (Shanghai, China), and Schenker International (HK) Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: F. Montag, B. Kacholdt, F. Hoseinian, lawyers, and by D. Colgan and T. Morgan, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by A. Dawes and N. von Lingen, and subsequently by A. Dawes and G. Meessen, acting as Agents, and by B. Kennelly and H. Mussa, Barristers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and for variation of the fines imposed on them in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd and Schenker International (HK) Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald v OHIM — Vieweg (goldstück)

(Case T-47/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark goldstück - Earlier Community word mark GOLDSTEIG - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2014/C 71/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH (Cham, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Christin Vieweg (Sonneberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Pröll, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2012 (Case R 2589/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH and Ms Christin Vieweg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/13

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2014 — K-Swiss v OHIM — Künzli SwissSchuh (parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T-85/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)))

2014/C 245/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: K-Swiss, Inc. (Westlake, California, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and K. Tasma, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Künzli SwissSchuh AG (Windisch, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2012 (Case R 174/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Künzli SwissSchuh AG and K-Swiss, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders K-Swiss, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/34

Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2014 — FTI Touristik v OHIM (BigXtra)

(Case T-81/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark BigXtra - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 142/43

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: FTI Touristik GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by A. Parr, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2012 (case R 2521/2011-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign BigXtra as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FTI Touristik GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.