ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/62

Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Boston Scientific Neuromodulation v OHIM (PRECISION SPECTRA)

(Case T-497/13)

2013/C 344/114

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. (Valencia, United States) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 May 2013 given in Case R 2099/2012-5;

— Declare Community trade mark application 009725912 to be eligible for registration; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PRECISION SPECTRA’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 10 — Community trade mark application No 9 725 912

Decision of the Examiner: Partially refused the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of 7(1)(b), (c) and 65(2) CTMR.
1.

The first plea is based on an infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that the measures examined in the contested decision do not satisfy any of the requirements for being regarded as state aid, since there is no element of selectivity in the advantage open to all potential investors from every sector of the economy, without any precondition being imposed; nor is there any distortion or threat of distortion of competition because it cannot be considered that an advantage open to all without any discrimination (not even on grounds of nationality) favours or is capable of favouring the competitive position of certain sectors or undertakings to the detriment of their competitors, because every investor could participate in the structures of the so-called STLS and obtain the benefits which that system offered. Consequently, there is no impact on trade between Member States either, given that the partners (or shareholders) in an entity do not carry on any activity on the market.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 352/21

Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Euromed v OHIM — DC Druck-Chemie (EUROSIL)

(Case T-523/13)

2013/C 352/39

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Euromed, SA (Mollet del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DC Druck-Chemie GmbH (Ammerbuch-Altingen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 June 2013 given in Case R 1854/2012-1; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EUROSIL’ for goods in Class 1 — Community trade mark application No 8 558 751

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘EUROSIL-85’ for goods in Class 5 — Community registration No 6 140 099 and the word mark ‘EUROSIL-85’ for goods in Class 5 — Spanish registration No 2 785 209

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/68

Action brought on 7 October 2013 — Dyson v Commission

(Case T-544/13)

2013/C 344/124

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dyson Ltd (Malmesbury, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Batchelor, Solicitor, and F. Carlin, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners, (OJ 2013 L 192, p. 1) in its entirety, or in any event those provisions relating to cleaning performance and energy efficiency; and

— Order the defendant to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs in relation with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant submits that the contested regulation is unlawful and relies in that respect on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded its competence under Article 10(1) of the enabling legislation, Directive 2010/30/EU (1), when it adopted this delegated act, as: — Article 10(1) requires that the Commission delegated act accurately inform EU consumers of energy consumption during use. The contested regulation misleads consumers as to the vacuum cleaner’s energy efficiency because cleaning performance is tested only when the vacuum cleaner has an empty receptacle and so not ‘during use’; — Article 10(1) requires that the Commission delegated act accurately inform EU consumers of essential resources consumed by an appliance during use, namely the dust bags and filters consumables. The delegated act provides no such information to consumers.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its duty to state reasons under Article 296 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) because the contested regulation does not explain why there is insufficient ‘technological progress’ to permit testing of energy consumption/cleaning performance in a dust-loaded state. Nor does it explain why the Commission postponed dust-loading for consideration only in five years’ time.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the fundamental principle of equality by adopting a contested regulation which discriminates in favour of bagged vacuum cleaners to the disadvantage of bagless vacuum cleaners and/or vacuum cleaners based on cyclonic technology. Loss of suction due to clogging — a feature particularly of bagged vacuum cleaners — cannot be detected by pristine state testing. The relative merits of bagless and cyclonic technology vacuum cleaners cannot be readily identified by consumers.

(1) Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (OJ 2010 L 153, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/33

Action brought on 4 October 2013 — Roeckl Sporthandschuhe v OHIM — Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires (representation of a hand)

(Case T-537/13)

2013/C 367/58

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: O. Baumann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2013 in so far as it upheld the intervener’s complaint in part and refused registration of a Community trade mark in respect of goods in Class 18 (leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials, in particular purses, pocket wallets, key cases, included in class 18) and in Class 25 (clothing, in particular gloves, included in class 25);

— order the intervener to pay the applicant’s costs, including the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings, and order the defendant (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, representing a hand, for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28 ‒ Community trade mark No 6 961 965

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires GmbH & Co. KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark and German figurative mark ‘Roeckl’, containing the representation of a hand, for goods in Classes 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 352/18

Action brought on 23 September 2013 — AgriCapital v OHIM — agri.capital (AGRI.CAPITAL)

(Case T-514/13)

2013/C 352/34

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: AgriCapital Corp. (New York, United States) (represented by: P. Meyer and M. Gramsch, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: agri.capital GmbH (Münster, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 July 2013 given in Case R 2236/2012-2;

— Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs of proceedings, as well as those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘AGRI.CAPITAL’ for goods and services in Classes 4, 7, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 8 341 323

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 6 192 322 for the word mark ‘AgriCapital’ for services in Class 36 and Community trade mark registration No 4 589 339 for the word mark ‘AGRICAPITAL’ for services in Class 36

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) CTMR.
—

find that the tender submitted by the Città di Roma Metronotte s.r.l. objectively infringes the principles of equal treatment and of competition, and is therefore contrary to the provisions contained in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, Recital 42 of the preamble to which states that ‘[t]he purpose of the procedures for the award of contracts is to satisfy the needs of the institutions on the best possible terms while guaranteeing equal access to public contracts and complying with the principles of transparency and non-discrimination’;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/37

Action brought on 24 October 2013 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-561/13)

2013/C 367/67

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul in part the contested decision to the extent that it excludes the expenditure, amounting to EUR 757 968,97, incurred by Kingdom of Spain in the context of the ICDN (compensatory allowances for natural handicaps; CANH) aid of Galicia’s 2007-2013 Rural Development programme in respect of ‘natural handicaps’, and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on 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), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10(2) and (4) of Regulation No 1975/2006. — The applicant claims that the obligation to count animals during on-the-spot checks in respect of the CANH aid breaches the principle of the continuity of the livestock density criterion and the principle of equal treatment, and that the Commission wrongly interpreted the abovementioned provisions by finding that the Spanish system was not suitable for verifying compliance with the livestock density criterion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/24

Action brought on 28 October 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (KIMBO)

(Case T-568/13)

2014/C 24/43

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cafe' do Brasil SpA (Melito di Napoli, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 August 2013 given in Cases R 636/2012-4 and R 608/2012-4;

— Order the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KIMBO’ for goods and services in Classes 11, 21, 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 420 973

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Spanish trade marks No 291 655, No 451 559 and No 2 244 563

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/30

Action brought on 18 November 2013 — Calida v OHIM — Quanzhou Green Garments (dadida)

(Case T-597/13)

2014/C 24/54

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Calida Holding AG (Sursee, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kaase and H. Dirksmeier, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Quanzhou Green Garments Co. Ltd (Quanzhou, China)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 September 2013 given in Case R 1190/2012-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: International registration with effect in the European Union No 979 903 for the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘dadida’ for goods in Class 25

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party 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: Relative grounds pursuant to Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/28

Action brought on 4 November 2013 — Schwerdt v OHIM — Iberamigo (cat&clean)

(Case T-587/13)

2014/C 24/50

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Miriam Schwerdt (Porta-Westfalica, Germany) (represented by: K. Kruse, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Iberamigo, SA (Rubi, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul decision No R 1799/2012-4 of the Board of Appeal of the defendant of 3 September 2013;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark in colour representing a cat with the word elements ‘cat & clean’ for goods in Class 31 — application for Community trade mark No 9 612 301

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Iberamigo, SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘CLEAN CAT’ for goods in Class 31

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and of Article 29 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/21

Action brought on 13 November 2013 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM — LG Electronics (compressor technology)

(Case T-595/13)

2014/C 39/36

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Korea)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1176/2012-1);

— Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘compressor technology’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11 — Community trade mark application No 7420151

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: LG Electronics, Inc.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word marks ‘KOMPRESSOR PLUS’ and ‘KOMPRESSOR’ for goods in Classes 7 and 11

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/39

Action brought on 3 December 2013 — Rogesa v Commission

(Case T-643/13)

2014/C 45/69

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and P. Schütter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 25 September 2013 (Ref GestDem No 2013/1504), and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. Right of access to the contested documents and lack of grounds for refusal under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) — The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 (2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, as it has a right of access to the documents requested by it and grounds for refusing access do not exist. — The applicant maintains that the requested documents do not contain commercially sensitive data within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and that in any event an overriding public interest justifying disclosure of the documents exists. — The applicant further submits that the ground for refusal pursuant to Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not apply, as the decision-making process, on which the Commission relies, was not available when the contested decision was made. The relevant Commission decision (2013/448/EU) was issued on 5 September 2013. — The applicant also claims that the Commission, in any event, had to grant partial access, if necessary by redacting identification characteristics. The Commission’s decision also infringes the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TUE.

2. Procedural irregularity — The applicant submits that Article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 has been infringed as the Commission did not observe the time-limit laid down by the provision.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/35

Action brought on 6 November 2013 — Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) and Luxembourg Industries v Commission

(Case T-578/13)

2014/C 45/60

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus); and Luxembourg Industries Ltd (Tel-Aviv, Israel) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— Annul the contested decision; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision of 8 October 2013, notified to the applicants on 9 October 2013, concerning the publication of certain parts of the Peer Review Report and Final Addendum on Potassium Phosphonates in respect of which the Applicants claimed confidentiality pursuant to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2011 (2) (the ‘Contested Decision’).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 14 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the fundamental right to the protection of business secrets enshrined in Article 339 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, following a misinterpretation of the above provisions and an erroneous assessment of the applicants’ claims for confidentiality.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breaches the fundamental principles of EU law, the principle of sound administration and the applicants’ right of defence, by failing to give the applicants sufficient opportunity to defend and clarify the rationale behind their confidentiality claims.

(1) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230, p.1)

(2) Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2011 of 25 February 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the procedure for the assessment of active substances which were not on the market 2 years after the date of notification of that Directive (OJ L 53, p.51)