ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/17

Action brought on 8 December 2010 — LG Electronics v OHIM (DIRECT DRIVE)

(Case T-561/10)

2011/C 38/32

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, 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 22 September 2010 in case R 1027/2010-2;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DIRECT DRIVE’ for goods in classes 7 and 11 — Community trade mark application No 8797052

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of articles 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to take into account prior Community trade marks and national registrations as well as a national application.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/41

Action brought on 12 November 2010 — Google v OHIM — Giersch Ventures (GMail)

(Case T-527/10)

()

2011/C 30/75

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Google, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (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: Giersch Ventures LLC (Los Angeles, United States)

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 8 September 2010 in case R 342/2010-4; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “GMail”, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 5685136

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: German trade mark registration No 30666860 of the word mark ‘G-mail’, registered for, among others, goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42; German trade mark registration No 30025697 of the figurative mark ‘G-mail … und die Post geht richtig ab’, for services in classes 38, 39 and 42.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred (i) in its visual comparison between the contested trade mark and the earlier opposed trade mark, (ii) in not taking into account the perception of the concerned consumer circles, (iii) in its assumption that the word elements of composite marks are always more coining than the visual elements, and disregarded case law in that respect, (iv) in its finding that the earlier word mark as a whole was not to be considered intrinsically weak, and (v) in its finding that the applicant’s arguments as regards the significance of the visual comparison over the phonetic comparison of the marks were inconclusive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/27

Appeal brought on 10 December 2010 by Patrizia De Luca against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case F-20/06, De Luca v Commission

(Case T-563/10 P)

2011/C 63/52

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Patrizia De Luca (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Council of the European Union

Forms of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 30 September 2010 (Case F-20/06 De Luca v Commission) dismissing the appellant’s application;

— giving judgment itself, — annul the decision of 23 February 2005 of the Commission of the European Communities appointing the applicant to a post as an administrator, in so far as it sets her classification at grade A*9 step 2; — order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant puts forward two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law alleging an error of law in that it was ruled that Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Union applied whereas that provision applies only to ‘recruitment’ of officials and the applicant was already an official at the time of her appointment. — The appellant claims that by ruling that that provision was applicable, the CST misunderstood the material scope of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Regulations, infringing the rule of interpretation according to which transitional legislative provisions must be interpreted strictly.
—

second plea, based on the fact that the amended decision breached essential procedural requirements, in that it was adopted without the mandatory consultation of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions, as required pursuant to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/19

Action brought on 27 December 2010 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Technisynthese (BTS)

(Case T-592/10)

2011/C 80/37

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. E. López Camba and J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Technisynthese SARL (Saint Pierre Montlimart, France)

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 23 September 2010 in Case R 1380/2009-1 in its entirety;

— order the defendant and any interveners to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: El Corte Inglés, SA.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BTS’ for goods in Classes 14, 18, 25 and 28.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Technisynthese SARL.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community figurative marks containing the word element ‘TBS’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and opposition upheld.

Pleas in law: Failure to demonstrate that the earlier marks have a reputation and have been put to use, and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

(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 80/24

Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Peeters Landbouwmachines v OHIM — Fors MW (BIGAB)

(Case T-33/11)

2011/C 80/47

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Peeters Landbouwmachines BV (Etten-Leur, Netherlands) (represented by: P.N.A.M. Claassen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AS Fors MW (Saue, Republic of Estonia)

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 4 November 2010 in case R 210/2010-1;

— Order the defendant to declare invalid the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for invalidity, or order the defendant to declare invalid the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for invalidity as far as it concerns the registration for Class 7; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the 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 ‘BIGAB’ for goods in classes 6, 7 and 12 — Community trade mark registration No 4363842

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

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute and relative grounds for invalidity pursuant to Articles 52(1)(b) and 53(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant contends that the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of bad faith and failed to recognise the importance of similarity between the goods covered by the compared trade marks.
—

annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1) and in particular to the extent that it introduces the subdivisions under Harmonized System (‘HS’) subheading 8443 31 and the corresponding duty rates; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/26

Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (Truvo)

(Case T-69/11)

2011/C 89/51

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Truvo Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: O.F.A.W. van Haperen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AOL LLC (Dulles, United States)

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 21 October 2010 in case R 956/2009-2; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in colour ‘Truvo’, for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 6288484

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 4756169 of the figurative mark ‘TRUVEO’ for services in class 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application for all of class 38

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as well as it lacks proper motivation, as the Board of Appeal erred (i) in its comparison of the services, (ii) in its comparison of the signs, (iii) in its assessment of the relevant public, and (iv) in its assessment of likelihood of confusion.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that there is no infringement in which the applicant participated since: — there is no finding in Articles 2 and 3 of the operative part of the decision that the applicant has participated in the single and continuous infringement described in the statement of reasons; — the Commission has not satisfied the relevant legal conditions under Article 101(1) TFEU and the applicable jurisprudence to attribute liability for a single and continuous infringement to the applicant; — on the basis of the evidence which, in the light of the second plea, the Commission is legally entitled to retain for the purposes of its re-assessment of objections against the applicant, the decision does not prove any infringement by the applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 130/15

Action brought on 22 February 2011 — American Express Marketing & Development v OHIM (IP ZONE)

(Case T-102/11)

2011/C 130/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: American Express Marketing & Development Corp. (New York, United States) (represented by: V. Spitz, A. Gaul, T. Golda and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

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 1 December 2010 in case R 1125/2010-2;

— In the alternative, amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2010 in case R 1125/2010-2, and rule that the appeal is justified;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IP ZONE’ for services in class 42

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal found that the trade mark lacks the necessary distinctiveness and is descriptive with respect to the services in question.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/15

Action brought on 3 February 2011 — Sogepi Consulting y Publicidad v OHIM (ESPETEC)

(Case T-72/11)

2011/C 113/31

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sogepi Consulting y Publicidad, SL (Vic, Spain) (represented by J.P. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda Sousa, T. Barceló Rebaque and N. Esteve Manasanch, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the Court to:

— annul and revoke the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 November 2010, in Case R 312/2010-2;

— as a consequence allow registration of Community trade mark No 7.114.572 ‘ESPETEC’; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ESPETEC’, for goods in Class 29

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the mark applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), since the term ‘ESPETEC’ is not devoid of distinctive character when considered independently of the goods applied for and infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 given the distortion and incorrect assessment of the evidence of use on the market of the mark ‘ESPETEC’.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)
—

declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Gagbei Faussignaux VAGBA, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,
—

declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Tiapé Edouard KASSARATE, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,
—

annul the Commission’s Decision of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as under the reason ‘Weaknesses in LPIS-GIS [Land Parcel Identification System and Geographic Information System respectively] system, performance of on-the-spot checks and in calculation of sanctions’ it applied financial corrections to several measures, excluding from European Union financing the sum of EUR 40 690 655,11 relating to expenditure incurred by the applicant in the financial years 2005, 2006 and 2007;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/26

Action brought on 18 March 2011 — Petroci v Council

(Case T-160/11)

2011/C 139/49

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Petroci Holding (Abidjan, Ivory Coast) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Decision 2011/18/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 imposing restrictive measures against certain persons and entities including Petroci Holding;

— Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are essentially identical with or similar to those raised in Case T-142/11 SIR v Council.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/33

Action brought on 17 March 2011 — Häfele v OHIM (Infront)

(Case T-166/11)

2011/C 145/55

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG (Nagold, Germany) (represented by M. Eck and J. Dönch, lawyers)

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

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 17 January 2011 in Case R 1711/2010-1;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Infront’ for goods in Classes 6 and 20

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as the Community trade mark in question has distinctive character, is not descriptive and is not a designation which has become customary

(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 145/35

Action brought on 21 March 2011 — Hopf v OHIM (Clampflex)

(Case T-171/11)

2011/C 145/58

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Jürgen Hopf (Zirndorf, Germany) (represented by V. Mensing, 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 19 January 2011 in Case R 1514/2010-4;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeal procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Clampflex’ for goods in Classes 5, 9, 10, 17 and 20

Decision of the Examiner: partial rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as the Community trade mark in question has distinctive character and is not descriptive

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission manifestly erred in its application of the jurisdictional allocation rules set forth in Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and in the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities (OJ 2004 C 101, p. 43), as: — By adopting the contested decision, the Commission has failed to ensure that an effective application of European Union law will take place, thereby ignoring the overriding public policy dictates to which Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 is subject, while also ignoring its own self-imposed rules contained in the Commission’s Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities and the relevant case-law; — The Commission has ignored its obligations under the Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities, since it has failed to intervene when an ‘National Competition Authority is unduly drawing out proceedings’, which is the case where the two-year deadline imposed by Slovenian law has expired without the National Competition Authority having even sent a final Statement of Objections. Furthermore, the Commission has ignored evidence overwhelmingly demonstrating that it is the ‘best placed’ authority to adjudicate on the causes of action at issue. In the circumstances, it is highly unlikely that the Slovenian Competition Authority is ‘able to bring the infringement to an ending’ in a reasonable and timely manner. By contrast, in the case at hand, it is clear that the ‘Community provisions […] may be […] more effectively applied by the Commission.’.
—

annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, in so far as they concern the applicants;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that such cost compensation should be paid under German law, applicable to the contract, more specifically under Section 313 of the German Civil Code (BGB).