ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/57

Action brought on 11 June 2008 — Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter and Others v Council

(Case T-217/08)

(2008/C 209/102)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter eV (Bonn Germany), Romuald Schaber (Petersthal, Germany), Stefan Mann (Eberdorfergrund, Germany) and Walter Peters (Körchow, Germany) (represented by: W. Renner and O. Schniewind, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— declare that Council Regulation (EC) No 248/2008 of 17 March 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the national quotas for milk (OJ 2008 L 76, p. 6) is invalid;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant brings an action against Regulation (EC) No 248/2008 (1) by which the national quotas for milk laid down in Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (2) until 1 August 2008 to facilitate greater milk production in the Community and to meet the new requirements of the market in milk were increased by 2 %.

In support of its action the applicant claims, first, that the increase in the national quotas for milk is a misuse of discretionary powers since it pursues grounds other than those indicated in the recitals.

In addition the regulation being challenged infringes the EC Treaty, as Article 37(2) EC is applied erroneously as a provision authorising disregard of the objectives set out in Article 33(1)(a) and (b) EC, the environmental protection requirements within the meaning of Article 6 EC has been unlawfully disregarded and the duty of conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage in the Community under Article 151 EC has been infringed.

Furthermore, there is an infringement of the applicant's freedom to choose a profession and to own property and of the principle of non-discrimination.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 248/2008 of 17 March 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the national quotas for milk (OJ 2008 L 76, p. 6).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/46

Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Sanatur v OHIM — Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim (life light)

(Case T-222/08)

(2008/C 223/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sanatur GmbH (Singen, Germany) (represented by: M. Wiume, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim AG (Trier, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2008 in Case R 1257/2006-1;

— Alter that decision so that the appeal is dismissed;

— Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sanatur GmbH.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘life light’ for goods in Class 32 (Application No 3 192 481).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim AG.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German figurative mark ‘LIGHT live’ for goods in Class 32 (Mark No 302 00 216).

Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annul the decision of the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) in that no likelihood of confusion exists between the conflicting marks.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/52

Action brought on 26 June 2008 — Vion v OHIM (PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD)

(Case T-251/08)

(2008/C 223/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Vion NV (Best, Netherlands) (represented by A. Klinger, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 April 2008 (Case R 562/2007-4);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD’ for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30 (Application for registration No 5 039 946).

Decision of the Examiner: Application dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, (1) as the trade mark applied for is sufficiently distinctive.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 247/18

Action brought on 29 July 2008 — Deutsche BKK v OHIM

(Case T-289/08)

(2008/C 247/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche BKK (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by H.P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla and S. Risthaus, acting as Agents)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2008 in Case R 318/2008-4, notified on 2 June 2008;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Deutsche BKK’ for services in Classes 36, 41 and 44 (application No 4 724 894).

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) due to the rejection of documents without the possibility for prior comments;

— Infringement of the first sentence of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 40/94 due to the Office's improper investigation of the facts;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 due to denial of protection for the mark ‘Deutsche BKK’ because of absolute grounds for refusal of protection for the mark;

— Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 due to refusal to recognise distinctive character in consequence of use.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/16

Action brought on 23 July 2008 — Inditex v OHIM

(Case T-292/08)

(2008/C 236/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Roberto Fernando Marín Díaz de Cerio (Logroño, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Declare the action against the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2008 lodged in time and in the required form and, via the appropriate procedure, order the annulment of that decision in respect of all or part of the goods refused.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘OFTEN’ (application No 2 798 270) for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 and 35.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Roberto Fernando Marín Díaz de Cerio.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word and figurative marks ‘OLTEN’ and Spanish figurative mark ‘OLTENWATCH’ for goods in Class 14.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upholding in part of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Principally, infringement of Articles 61(1) and 62(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and, as a subsidiary plea, infringement of Articles 43(2) and 8(1)(b) of that regulation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/15

Action brought on 7 August 2008 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones (4 OUT Living)

(Case T-307/08)

(2008/C 260/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks, C. Fürsen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones SL (Cuarte de Huerva, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 1199/2007-1; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘4 OUT Living’ for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 28

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: Spanish trade mark registration No 2 604 969 of the figurative mark ‘Living & Co’ for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 34 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a risk of confusion between the trade marks concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 247/20

Action brought on 29 July 2008 — Mepos Electronics v OHIM (MEPOS)

(Case T-297/08)

(2008/C 247/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Mepos Electronics Ltd (Kaohsiung, Taiwan) (represented by M. Wirtz, lawyer)

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

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 28 May 2008 in case R 437/2008-2;

— Grant the request for restitutio in integrum; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MEPOS’ for goods in class 9 — application No 5 770 383

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the applicant's trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 36, 77(a) and 79 of Council Regulation No 40/94, as well as Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights and Article 6(2) of Treaty on European Union as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that the examiner has followed a lawful proceeding in the application process; infringement of Article 78 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred by not granting the request for restitutio in integrum for failure to comply with the time-limit to file an appeal.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/28

Appeal brought on 16 July 2008 by P. Longinidis against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 24 April 2008 in Case F-74/06 Pavlos Longinidis v Cedefop

(Case T-283/08 P)

(2008/C 272/54)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Pavlos Longinidis (represented by P. Giatagantzidis and S. Stavropoulou, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Cedefop

Form of order sought by the appellant

— set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2008 in Case F-74/06 Pavlos Longinidis v Cedefop;

— annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop of 30 November 2005 terminating the appellant's employment contract of indefinite duration of 4 March 2003, and any other related administrative act;

— annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop of 11 November 2005 amending the composition of the Appeals Committee of Cedefop, and any other related administrative act;

— annul the decision of the Appeals Committee of Cedefop of 24 May 2006 rejecting the appellant's complaint of 28 February 2006, and any other related administrative act;

— uphold the action brought by the appellant on 19 June 2006;

— order Cedefop to pay the costs of both the case at first instance and the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By his action, the appellant sought, inter alia, the annulment of the decision of the Director of Cedefop terminating his employment contract of indefinite duration. That action was dismissed by judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2008.

The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal was delivered in breach of the rules that govern the bringing of evidence because it was based on matters that were not proved. More specifically, when examining the appellant's argument that the reasons for dismissal were communicated to him orally at the meeting on 23 November 2005, the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law because it altered the subject of the evidence.

In addition, the appellant contends that the reasoning set out in the judgment under appeal is not adequate. In particular, he asserts that the Civil Service Tribunal's reasoning was not adequate when it decided whether the appellant was appropriately and sufficiently informed by Cedefop as to the reasons for his dismissal and that the Tribunal did not specify all the facts which in its view led to his dismissal.

Finally, the appellant submits that his complaint of 28 February 2006 challenging the decision to dismiss him was not heard by the Appeals Committee of Cedefop in an objective and impartial manner.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/35

Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Grasso v Commission

(Case T-319/08)

(2008/C 272/67)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Salvatore Grasso (Catania, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/42

Action brought on 11 August 2008 — Bull and Others v Commission

(Case T-333/08)

(2008/C 285/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Bull SAS (Les Clayes-sous-Bois, France), Unisys Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) and Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) SA (Capellen, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Lombaert and M. van der Woude, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision, namely: — the rejection of the tender of Consortium B-Trust — the decision not to award the contract — the decision to open a negotiated procedure;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants challenge the Commission's decision to reject their tender submitted in connection with the call for tenders procedure concerning contract ‘DIGIT/R2/PO/2007/024 — Managed services provision’ (OJ 2007 S 159 — 197776) and the decision not to award the contract in the absence of satisfactory tenders and to open the negotiated procedure.

In support of their application, the applicants claim, first of all, that the contested decision was not taken in compliance with the rules for the conferral of powers within the Commission, since the decision was taken by an ‘Acting Head of Unit’. The applicants take the view that it was not established that the author of the measure was in fact entitled to adopt such a decision in the Commission's name.

Secondly, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed its obligation to state reasons by not setting out, in its decision, the grounds on which it considered that certain prices in the applicant's tender were unusually low and that the tender did not comply with the relevant legal provisions in the event of performance of the contract in Brussels or Luxembourg.

Finally, the applicants consider that the Commission infringed the procedure for checking that the prices were lawful, in so far as (i) the Commission excluded the applicant's tender on the basis of the procedure in respect of unusually low prices, whereas the tender was financially sound, (ii) the Commission did not take into account the reasons provided by the applicants and (iii) the contested decision was not based on an accurate account of the facts.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/53

Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Stowarzyszenie Autorów ‘ZAiKS’ v Commission

(Case T-398/08)

(2008/C 285/94)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Stowarzyszenie Autorów ‘ZAiKS’ (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: B. Borkowska and M. Błeszyński, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Article 3 and Article 4(2) and (3) (to the extent to which those provisions refer to Article 3) of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC);

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In this case the applicant is seeking the partial annulment of the Commission decision of [16] July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) to the extent to which it concerns concerted practices with regard to the conditions governing the administration of rights to the public performance of musical works and the granting of corresponding licences by collecting societies and which take the form of restrictions on membership applied in the reciprocal representation agreements as envisaged in the CISAC model contract (model contract of the Conféderation Internationale des Sociétés d'Auteurs et Compositeurs — International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers — CISAC) or as applied in practice.

The applicant bases its action on the following pleas:

— absence of a balanced appraisal of all the conditions essential for the correct interpretation of the concept of ‘concerted practices’ as a result of an incomplete regard for the facts of the case and a lack of regard for all of the inseparably linked elements constituting the collective administration of copyright;

— defective appraisal of the grounds on which the principle of territoriality chosen in the reciprocal representation agreements is based;

— defective indication and assessment of the consequences of a potential alteration of the system obtaining hitherto for the collective administration of copyright;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/46

Appeal brought on 10 September 2008 by Bart Nijs against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 26 June 2008 in Case F-1/08 Nijs v Court of Auditors

(Case T-376/08 P)

(2008/C 301/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Rollinger and A. Hertzog, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Declare the appeal admissible;

— Declare the appeal well-founded;

— Consequently, annul the order of 26 June 2008 in Case F-1/08 Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-371/08 P.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/49

Action brought on 29 September 2008 — FIFA v OHIM — Ferrero (WORLD CUP 2006)

(Case T-444/08)

(2008/C 313/88)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Alexander QC, A. Barav, Barrister, R. Buchel and C. Rassmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferrero OHG mbH (Stadtallendorf, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul, in whole or in part, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 June 2008 in case R 1466/2005-1; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘WORLD CUP 2006’ for goods and services in classes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 2 152 817

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division

Pleas in law: (i) Infringement of Article 73 and 74(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 in so far as the Board of Appeal has based, largely, its decision on Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94, a provision which was neither invoked by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, nor relied upon by the Cancellation Division; (ii) Alternatively, infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to consider the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity as a whole, through the eyes of the average consumer and to apply the relevant law relating to the assessment of descriptiveness of the goods and/or services applied for; and (iii) Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity was devoid of the necessary distinctive character; and (iv) Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 51(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity had not acquired a distinctive character for services in class 41.