ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/43

Action brought on 8 May 2013 — Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung v OHIM — Rivella International (holzmichel)

(Case T-263/13)

2013/C 207/73

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH (Sohland, Germany) (represented by: A. Weiß, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rivella International AG (Rothrist, Switzerland)

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 21 February 2013 in Case R 1968/2011-1;

— vary the contested decision in such a way as to reject the opponent’s opposition;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal procedure, or order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘holzmichel’ for goods and services in Classes 21, 24, 32, 33 and 38 — Community trade mark application No 8 904 278

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Rivella International AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration of figurative marks containing the word elements ‘Michel’ and ‘Michel POWER’ for goods in Classes 29, 30, 32 and 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and registration refused

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/44

Action brought on 20 May 2013 — Polo/Lauren/OHIM — FreshSide (Representation of a boy on a bike holding a mallet)

(Case T-265/13)

2013/C 207/74

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Polo/Lauren Company, LP (New York, United States) (represented by: S. Davies, Solicitor, J. Hill, Barrister and R. Black, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: FreshSide Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Second Board of Appeal’s decision of 1 March 2013 in Case R 15/2012-2;

— Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

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 figurative mark containing a representation of a boy on a bike holding a mallet for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 8 766 917

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark containing a representation of a polo player on a horse for goods in classes 9, 18, 20, 21, 24 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 215/19

Action brought on 13 June 2013 — DelSolar (Wujiang) v Commission

(Case T-320/13)

2013/C 215/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DelSolar (Wujiang) Ltd (Wujiang City, China) (represented by: L. Catrain González, lawyer, E. Wright and H. Zhu, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 (1), in so far as it applies to the applicant;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission has made a manifest error of law by amplifying the scope of third indent of Article 2(7)(c) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51) (the ‘Basic Regulation’) and reviewing alleged significant distortions which, because they have not been carried over from the former non-market economy system, they clearly fell outside the scope of the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Regulation

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the the European Commission has wrongly concluded that the production costs and overall financial situation of the applicant were subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system as provided in the third indent of the Basic Regulation.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission has made an error of assessment in light of the fact that neither the negligible subsidies received nor the preferential tax regime received by the applicant and its affiliate Delta Greentech (China) Co. Ltd. (jointly referred as ‘DelSolar Group’) were ‘carried over from the former non-market economy system’.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission to reject the applicant's market economy treatment (‘MET’) request on the sole basis of a preferential tax regime and negligible subsidies is disproportionate and unnecessary.

(1) Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 of 4 June 2013 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China and amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 making these imports originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ 2013 L 152, p. 5)
—

Declare and rule that, — The judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2012 in Case F-91/10 AK v European Commission is set aside; — The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant: — compensation for the loss of a 95 % chance of being promoted to grade A4 in promotion year 2003, 2005 or at the latest 2007, in the sum of EUR 375 295, EUR 204 996 and EUR 90 130 respectively, including therein the lump sum of EUR 4 000 already paid, in addition to the regularisation of her pension rights by payment of the corresponding contributions; — EUR 55 000, in addition to the EUR 15 000 already paid, in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the continuation of her irregular administrative situation despite, in particular, the judgments of 20 April 2005 and 6 October 2009 of the General Court and of 13 December 2007 of the European Civil Service Tribunal and the decision of 23 April 2007 of the Appointing Authority to uphold the claim brought by the applicant on 4 September 2006; — The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/39

Action brought on 2 July 2013 — Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council

(Case T-351/13)

2013/C 252/66

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China) and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG (Roding, Germany) (represented by: K. Neuhaus, H.-J. Freund and B. Ecker, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the application admissible;

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2013 (1) of 22 April 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 of 10 October 2011 as far as it concerns the applicants; and

— Order the defendant to bear its own costs as well as those of the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Art. 2 (7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) or Art. 296 (2) TFEU in so far as the Council made manifest errors of assessment or infringed its obligation to state reasons when it selected Brazil as an analogue country for the purposes of determining the normal value. The Council wrongly found that or failed to reason why there is sufficient competition on the Brazilian market, in particular with regard to the degree of competition between domestic producers and with regard to the degree of competition exerted by imports.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Art. 2 (7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 or Art. 296 (2) TFEU in so far as the Council made a manifest error of assessment or infringed its obligation to state reasons when rejecting a claim for an adjustment to the normal value to account for the effect of a 14 % import duty on the product concerned in the analogue country Brazil.

3. Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Art. 9 (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 in so far as the Council made a manifest error of assessment by, when applying the ‘lesser duty rule’, comparing the dumping margin established in the contested regulation with the injury elimination level established in the original investigation in 2005 instead of establishing a new injury elimination level.

(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2013 of 22 April 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2013 L 112, p. 1)

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/41

Action brought on 11 July 2013 — Spain Doce 13 v OHIM — Ovejero Jiménez and Becerra Guibert (VICTORIA DELEF)

(Case T-359/13)

2013/C 252/69

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Spain Doce 13, SL (Crevillente, Spain) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gregorio Ovejero Jiménez and María Luisa Becerra Guibert (Alicante, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General 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 10 April 2013 in Case R 1046/2012-5 in so far as it refuses registration of Community trade mark application No 9 522 384 in relation to the following goods and services: — Class 18: goods made of leather and imitations of leather not included in other classes; — Class 25: clothing, footwear and headgear; — Class 35: retail and wholesale services of clothing, footwear and accessories;

— order OHIM to pay the costs in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Spain Doce 13, SL

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘VICTORIA DELEF’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 522 384

Proprietors of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gregorio Ovejero Jiménez and María Luisa Becerra Guibert

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative marks containing the word element ‘VICTORIA’, ‘Victoria’ and ‘victoria’ for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
First plea in law, alleging that the basis of the Decision is illegal

The applicant claims that, by its Decision ECB/2011/6, (1) the ECB materially extended the scope of the refusal grounds set out in Article 4(1)(a) of Decision ECB/2004/3 (2) without sufficient authorisation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/49

Action brought on 23 July 2013 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v OHIM — Carolus C. (English pink)

(Case T-378/13)

2013/C 260/88

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd (Victoria, Australia) and Star Fruits Diffusion (Caderousse, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carolus C. BVBA (Nieuwerkerken, Belgium)

Form of order sought

— First, alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2013 in Case R 1215/2011-4 to the effect that the action brought by the applicants before the Board of Appeal is well founded and, consequently, that the opposition filed by the applicants should be upheld;

— In the alternative, annul in its entirety the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2013 in Case R 1215/2011-4; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Carolus C.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘English pink’ for goods in Class 31 — Application for Community trade mark No 8 610 768

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘PINK LADY’ and figurative marks containing the word elements ‘Pink lady’ for goods in Classes 16, 29, 30, 31 and 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of the principle of res judicata;

— Infringement of the general principles of legal certainty, sound administration and protection of legitimate expectations;

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 284/4

Action brought on 8 August 2013 — Le Comptoir d'Épicure v OHIM — A-Rosa Akademie (da rosa)

(Case T-405/13)

2013/C 284/06

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Le Comptoir d'Épicure (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: A-Rosa Akademie GmbH (Rostock, Germany)

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 22 May 2013 in case R 1195/2012-5; and

— order OHIM and A-Rosa Akademie GmbH to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Le Comptoir d'Épicure

Community trade mark concerned: The international registration designating the European Union of the figurative mark with word elements ‘da rosa’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30 and 43 — International registration No 1 047 095 designating the European Union

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: A-Rosa Akademie GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National, international and Community word marks ‘aROSA’ and national and international figurative marks with the word elements ‘aROSA Lust auf Schiff’

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition is upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The action is dismissed

Pleas in law:

— First plea, alleging a contradiction in the reasoning , if not an excess of authority;

— Second plea, alleging infringement of Articles 5, 34(1) and 35 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Third plea, alleging infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, of Rule 22 of Regulation No 2868/95, and of Article 78(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Fourth plea, alleging infringement of general principles of law, of the hierarchy of legal rules and a manifest error of assessment;

— Fifth plea, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Sixth plea, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2868/95;

— Seventh plea, alleging a manifest error concerning the relevant public and the assessment of the signs;
—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 June 2013 in Case R 1308/2012-5 concerning Community trade mark registration 010355527, Word: SUBSCRIBE and the preceding decision of the Trade Mark Department of OHIM of 22 May 2012, in so far as protection was denied to the mark;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 304/26

Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and CTTI v Commission

(Case T-465/13)

2013/C 304/45

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña (Catalonia, Spain) and Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (Catalonia, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García, M. Muñoz de Juan and M. Reverter Baquer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare admissible and well-founded the grounds of annulment relied on in support of the present action;

— annul the contested decision, in particular Article 1, in so far as it finds that there is a State aid incompatible with the internal market;

— consequently, annul the recovery orders provided for in Articles 3 and 4 of the decision; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present case is the same as that at issue in Case T-462/13, Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission.

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the same pleas in law as those relied on in Case T-462/13.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/9

Action brought on 22 July 2013 — Costa Crociere v OHIM — Guerlain (SAMSARA)

(Case T-388/13)

2013/C 298/15

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Costa Crociere SpA (Genova, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, S. Bergia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guerlain SA (Levallois-Perret, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 13 May 2013 given in Case R 2049/2011-4; and

— Order the other parties to reimburse the costs incurred by the applicant before the OHIM, as well as during the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The verbal mark SAMSARA for services in class 44 — Community trade mark application No 8 979 122

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 497 966 of the verbal mark SAMSARA for goods in class 3

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1) (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark (1).

(1) OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/40

Appeal brought on 20 August 2013 by the Agence européenne des médicaments (EMA) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 June 2013 in Joined Cases F-135/11, F-51/12 and F-110/12, BU v EMA

(Case T-444/13 P)

2013/C 325/67

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Agence européenne des médicaments (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabloński and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: BU (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Cases F-135/11, F-51/12 and F-110/12 in so far as it annuls the decision of the EMA not to renew the defendant’s contract, and orders the EMA to bear the costs of BU in Cases F-135/11 and F-51/12;

— grant the form of order sought at first instance by the appellant, namely dismiss the action as wholly unfounded

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those which took place before the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging infringement by the Civil Service Tribunal of the prohibition on ruling ultra vires in that it decided that it has the power to ascertain whether the grounds given by the administration for refusing to renew a contract are not such as to call into question the criteria and conditions which have been laid down by the legislature in the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union seeking to ensure that contractual staff are able to benefit, over time, from a certain continuity of employment (concerning paragraphs 57 to 62 of the judgment under appeal). The EMA claims that there is no legal basis for the power claimed by the Civil Service Tribunal.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when interpreting the first subparagraph of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEO), since the Civil Service Tribunal held that it is for the competent authority to examine whether there exists a position to which the temporary agent whose contract has terminated could be usefully appointed or reappointed.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in that it distorts the concept of the interests of the service, in so far as the interpretation given by the Civil Service Tribunal creates a presumption according to which the interested person’s employment is continued unless the competent authority is able to establish that there exists no position to which the temporary agent whose contract has terminated could be usefully appointed or reappointed.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law with regard to the order that the EMA pay the costs in Case F-51/12, which was dismissed as inadmissible.
1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of the Commission’s duty to investigate the complaint with due care and diligence, and a manifest error of fact in assessing the arguments set out in the complaint with reference to Article 102 TFEU, the concrete and autonomous abuse or abuses of dominance committed by OPAP and the relevant market definition.
—

Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 17), in so far as it relates to the applicant; and