ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/40

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air France v Commission

(Case T-63/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société Air France SA (Roissy-en-France, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Giolito, S. Noë and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents, and B. Lebrun, lawyer, and subsequently by C. Giolito and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón, M. Simm and M. Balta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, or, at the very least, for annulment of Article 5(b) of that decision, in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant, or for the reduction of that fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Société Air France SA;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Société Air France SA;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/18

Judgment of the General Court of (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

(Case T-12/12) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Orphacol - Letter informing the applicant of the Commission’s intention to refuse authorisation - Application for a declaration of failure to act - Definition of position by the Commission - Inadmissibility - Application for annulment - Adoption of a new decision - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 243/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Barnden, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and L. Banciella, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, acting as Agent), and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by E. Jenkinson and S. Ossowski, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson and H. Walker, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Re:

Application for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in unlawfully failing to adopt a final decision in relation to the applicant’s application for a marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Orphacol, and, in the alternative, for annulment of the decision, allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 5 December 2011, not to grant that authorisation to the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for a declaration of failure to act as inadmissible;

2. Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment submitted in the alternative;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Laboratoires CTRS;

4. Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 189/21

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Verus v OHIM — Performance Industries Manufacturing (VORTEX)

(Case T-104/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for registration of the Community word mark VORTEX - Earlier Community word mark VORTEX - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right of priority - Article 29 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Partial surrender - Article 50 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Infringement of the right to be heard - Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009)

2013/C 189/42

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Verus Eood (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented initially by S. Vykydal, then by F. Henkel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Performance Industries Manufacturing, Inc. (Odessa, Florida, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 December 2011 (Case R 512/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Verus Eood and Performance Industries Manufacturing Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Verus Eood to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/18

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2013 — K2 Sports Europe v OHIM — Karhu Sport Iberica (SPORT)

(Case T-54/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark SPORT - Earlier national and international word marks K2 SPORTS - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 79/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: K2 Sports Europe GmbH (Penzberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and I. Harrington, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Karhu Sport Iberica, SL (Córdoba, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2011 (Case R 986/2010-4), concerning opposition proceedings between K2 Sports Europe GmbH and Karhu Sport Iberica, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders K2 Sports Europe GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 233/8

Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend against a red background)

(Case T-206/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark LIBERTE american blend - Earlier Community word mark La LIBERTAD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 233/13

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

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, intervener before the General Court: Villiger Söhne GmbH (Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany) (represented by: B. Pikolin and H. McKenzie, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 411/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Villiger Söhne GmbH and GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 377/14

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — IBSolution v OHIM — IBS (IBSolution)

(Case T-533/12) (1)

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

2013/C 377/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: IBSolution GmbH (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: F. Ekey, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: IBS AB (Solna, Sweden)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 September 2012 (Case R 771/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between IBS AB and IBSolution GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders IBSolution GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 352/15

Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Zoo Sport v OHIM — K-2 (ZOOSPORT)

(Case T-453/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ZOOSPORT - Earlier Community word mark ZOOT and earlier Community figurative mark SPORTS ZOOT SPORTS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 352/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zoo Sport Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Rungg, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: K-2 Corp. (Seattle, United States of America) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2012 (Case R 1119/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between K-2 Corp. and Zoo Sport Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Zoo Sport Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/8

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — Bial-Portela v OHIM — Probiotical (PROBIAL)

(Case T-113/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark PROBIAL - Earlier national, international and Community figurative marks, emblem, business name and logo Bial - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 61/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bial-Portela & Ca, SA (São Mamede do Coronado, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Probiotical SpA (Novara, Italy) (represented by: I. Kuschel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 December 2011 (Case R 1925/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Portela & Ca, SA and Probiotical SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bial-Portela & Ca, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/10

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 — Eckes-Granini v OHIM — Panini (PANINI)

(Case T-487/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark PANINI - Earlier national and Community word marks GRANINI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 31/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH (Nieder-Olm, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Panini SpA (Modène, Italy) (represented by F. Terrano, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Case R 2393/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Eckes-Granini Group GmbH and Panini SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Eckes-Granini Group GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/22

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — Beco v Commission

(Case T-81/12) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of stainless steel fasteners originating in China and Taiwan - Application for recovery of charges levied - Second subparagraph of Article 11(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Legal certainty)

2014/C 93/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Beco Metallteile-Handels GmbH (Spaichingen, Germany) (represented by: T. Pfeiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 9112 final of 13 December 2011, concerning an application for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of stainless steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China and Taiwan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 9112 final of 13 December 2011, concerning an application for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of stainless steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China and Taiwan;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Sunrider v OHIM — Nannerl (SUN FRESH)

(Case T-221/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark SUN FRESH - Earlier Community, Benelux and national word and figurative marks SUNNY FRESH, SUNRIDER SUNNY FRESH and SUNNYFRESH - Relative ground for refusal - Proof of the genuine use of earlier marks - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2014/C 71/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Sunrider Corporation (Torrance, California, United States) (represented by: N. Dontas and E. Markakis, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Nannerl GmbH & Co. KG (Anthering bei Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2012 (Case R 2401/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between The Sunrider Corporation and Nannerl GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders The Sunrider Corporation to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/36

Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2014 — Comsa v OHIM — COMSA (COMSA)

(Case T-144/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark COMSA - Earlier company name Comsa, SA - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Similarity of the services - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 175/47

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Comsa, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented initially by M. Aznar Alonso, and subsequently by A. Gómez López, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Constructora de obras municipales, SA (COMSA) (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 January 2012 (Joined cases R 518/2011-2 and R 795/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Comsa, SA and Constructora de obras municipales, SA (COMSA).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 January 2012 (Joined cases R 518/2011-2 and R 795/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Comsa, SA and Constructora de obras municipales, SA (COMSA), in so far as it annulled the decision of the Opposition Division with respect to the services in Class 42 and authorised registration of the mark applied for in relation to those same services;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

3. Orders Comsa to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by OHIM. Orders OHIM to bear one quarter of its costs.

(1) OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/20

Judgment of the General Court of 13 March 2014 — Heinrich v OHIM — Commission (European Network Rapid Manufacturing)

(Case T-430/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark European Network Rapid Manufacturing - Absolute ground for refusal - Imitation of the emblem of an international intergovernmental organisation - Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 6b of the Paris Convention))

2014/C 129/26

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Heinrich Beteiligungs GmbH (Witten, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis, lawyer)

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: European Commission

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2012 (Case R 793/2011-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between the European Commission and Heinrich Beteiligungs GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders Heinrich Beteiligungs GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(1) OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/16

Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — European Drinks SA v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (Dracula Bite and DRACULA BITE)

(Case T-495/12 to T-497/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative marks Dracula Bite and DRACULA BITE - Earlier national figurative mark Dracula - Absence of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 235/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Drinks SA (Ştei, Romania) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl (Pleasa, Romania) (represented by: I. Niculeasa, G. Trantea and B. Mărculet, lawyers)

Re:

Three actions brought against three decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Cases R 680/2011-4, R 682/2011-4 and R 679/2011-4), concerning three opposition proceedings between European Drinks SA and SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Joins Cases T-495/12, T-496/12 and T-497/12 for the purposes of the judgment;

2) Dismisses the actions;

3) Orders European Drinks SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/19

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2014 — Adler Modemärkte v OHIM — Blufin (MARINE BLEU)

(Case T-160/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MARINE BLEU - Earlier Community word mark BLUMARINE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 202/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Adler Modemärkte AG (Haibach, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Blufin SpA (Carpi, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2012 (case R 1955/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Blufin SpA and Adler Modemärkte AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. orders Adler Modemärkte AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

3. orders Blufin SpA to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/37

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Elite Licensing (e)

(Case T-425/12) (1)

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

2014/C 292/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: B. Gumpoldsberger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Elite Licensing Company SA (Fribourg, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 881/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Elite Licensing Company SA and Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.