ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/51

Action brought on 1 April 2013 — M.E.M. v OHIM (MONACO)

(Case T-197/13)

2013/C 156/93

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: MARQUES DE L’ÉTAT DE MONACO (M.E.M.) (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: S. Arnaud, 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 29 January 2013 in Case R 113/2012-4;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of the word mark ‘MONACO’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 43 — International registration designating the European Union No 1 069 254

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

— First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 5, 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009

— Second plea, alleging infringement of the law in the interpretation of distinctiveness

— Third plea, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of distinctiveness

— Fourth plea, alleging a failure to state reasons, insufficient reasoning or contradictory reasons for the refusal of registration for the goods in Class 9
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/11

Action brought on 12 April 2013 — Olive Line International v OHIM (OLIVE LINE)

(Case T-209/13)

2013/C 178/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Olive Line International, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General 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 31 January 2013 in Case R 1447/2012-1;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a green quadrangular bottle including the words ‘OLIVE LINE’ for goods in Class 29 — International registration no 1 088 753 designating the European Community

Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/50

Action brought on 15 May 2013 — Now Wireless/OHIM — Starbucks (HK) (now)

(Case T-278/13)

2013/C 207/82

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Now Wireless Ltd (Guildford, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Starbucks (HK) Ltd (Hong Kong, China)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision; and

— Order Community Trade Mark Registration No 1421700 to be revoked on grounds of non-use;

— Order the registered proprietor to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘now’ for services in classes 35, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 421 700

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

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partially revoked the Community trade mark registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 February 2013 in Case R 1307/2012-4 concerning Community trade mark registration 010355501, Word: EXACT and the previous decision of the Trade Marks Department of OHIM of 29 May 2012 concerning Community trade mark registration 010355501, Word: EXACT, in so far as the trade mark was refused protection;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/39

Action brought on 2 May 2013 — Naazneen Investments/OHIM — Energy Brands (SMART WATER)

(Case T-250/13)

2013/C 207/66

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Naazneen Investments Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr and T. Melchert, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Energy Brands, Inc. (New York, United States)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 1101/2011-2;

— Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘SMART WATER’, Community trade mark registration No 781 153

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/43

Action brought on 15 May 2013 — Skysoft Computersysteme/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYSOFT)

(Case T-262/13)

2013/C 207/72

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Skysoft Computersysteme GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany) (represented by: P. Ehrlinger and T. Hagen, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2013, as it dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff against the decision of the OHIM Opposition Division of 30 September 2011 and did not reject the opposition of the intervening party;

— Order the intervening party to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred during the course of the appeal proceedings.

— Request the defendant to produce the annexes submitted by the intervening party and the plaintiff within the framework of the opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SKYSOFT’ — Community trade mark application No 4 782 645 for products and services in classes 9, 35, 37, 38 and 42

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘SKY’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted contrary to the Basic Regulation, since it opted for a countrywide duty and refused to calculate an individual dumping duty, despite the fact that it had all the information it needed to do so. In this regard, the applicants note that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts, an error in law, failed to state reasons for its conclusions, breached its duty of care and violated the rights of defence as well as the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations of the applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 215/16

Action brought on 3 June 2013 — LemonAid Beverages/OHIM — Pret a Manger (Europe) (Lemonaid)

(Case T-298/13)

2013/C 215/23

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LemonAid Beverages GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Lüken and J. Natzel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prêt à Manger (Europe) Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2013 (Case R 276/2012-2) by which the Second Board of Appeal upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division to declare the CTM No 007089444 invalid with regard to the contested goods in classes 32 and 33 and the corresponding decision of the Cancellation Division of OHIM of 20 December 2011 (Case 4123 C);

— Dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity dated 7 January 2010 against the CTM No 007089444 in its entirety;

— Order OHIM 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: The word mark ‘Lemonaid’– Community trade mark registration No 7 089 444

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Articles 53(1)(c) and 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1) in conjunction with 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/22

Action brought on 7 June 2013 — Repsol v OHIM — Argiles (ELECTROLINERA)

(Case T-308/13)

(2013/C 226/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Repsol, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Josep María Adell Argiles (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul and declare inapplicable the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 March 2013 in Case R 1565/2012-1 and, consequently, allow the registration of Community trade mark No 9 548 884‘ELECTROLINERA’ for the goods in Classes 4, 37 and 39 in respect of which registration was refused in the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ELECTROLINERA’ for goods and services in Classes 4, 35, 37 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 9 548 884

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Josep María Adell Argiles

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘ELECTROLINERA’ for goods in Classes 6, 9 and 12

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld in part, decision of the Opposition Division annulled in part and, therefore, more extensive refusal of the Community trade mark application

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal made an error in law when stating that a candidate whose initial mark was below the passing mark in accordance with pre-established criteria, is not entitled to a comparative assessment (paragraph 41), as: — According to the settled case law, each and every candidate in an EPSO competition is entitled to a comparative assessment, irrespective of whether his/her initial result is above or below the passing mark; — The Selection Board did not fulfill its comparative assessment duty not only with respect to the appellant, but also with respect to all the other candidates in the oral test as the time reserved for the final evaluation session was manifestly insufficient; and — The judgment under appeal does not rely on the relevant arguments raised by the appellant and does not take into account the inconsistencies in the defendant's arguments.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/37

Action brought on 1 July 2013 — Hawe Hydraulik v OHIM — HaWi Energietechnik (HAWI)

(Case T-347/13)

2013/C 252/63

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Hawe Hydraulik SE (Munich, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HaWi Energietechnik AG (Eggenfelden, Germany)

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 26 April 2013 in Case R 1690/2012-4 relating to Community trade mark application No 6 558 589‘HAWI’;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: HaWi Energietechnik AG

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HAWI’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 35, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6 558 589

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark including the word element ‘HAWE’ for goods in Classes 7 and 9

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 42(2) in conjunction with Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the erroneous assessment of the evidence constituted by the declaration on oath;

— Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the erroneous assessment of the evidence constituted by the extracts from the Internet;

— Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the assessment of the proof of use in its entirety;

— Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the failure to take the proof of use into account;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/43

Action brought on 4 July 2013 — Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks v Commission

(Case T-354/13)

2013/C 260/78

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Jung, M. Teworte-Vey, A. Renvert and J. T. Saatkamp, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 8 April 2013 in the cases ‘Kołocz śląski/Kołacz śląski’ — Schlesischer Streuselkuchen (Ref. Ares [2013] 619104 — 10 April 2013).

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law: incorrect legal basis — The applicant claims that the defendant erred in law in basing its decision concerning the applicant’s request for cancellation of the registration of ‘Kołocz śląski/Kołacz śląski’ as a protected geographical indication on the new version of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, (1) in force at the time of the defendant’s decision, instead of on the old Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, (2) in force at the time when the applicant submitted its request. The defendant thereby infringed the principle of tempus regit actum. — The applicant further claims that the request for cancellation of the registration under Regulation No 510/2006 is admissible and well founded. In this connection, it maintains, inter alia, that there are two grounds for cancellation (the generic nature of the contested indication within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 510/2006, and the erroneous delimitation of the geographic zone of Silesia in the registration specifications) for the purpose of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 510/2006, and that any different interpretation and application of that provision would infringe the fundamental rights of bakeries in the Federal Republic of Germany.

2. Second plea in law: breach of Regulation No 1151/2012 — The applicant claims that its request would be admissible and well founded even if it were assessed on the basis of Regulation No 1151/2012.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).
1.

The first plea in law concerns a breach of the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 and of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 by reason of the application of a financial correction based on erroneous determinations of fact and a misinterpretation of law, notwithstanding the fact that the expenditure was effected by the Polish authorities in compliance with the provisions of European Union law In the context of this plea in law, the applicant expresses the view that the correction applied was, in the light of the position taken by the Commission, attributable to five alleged failings in the completion of the measure relating to ‘Support for semi-subsistence farms’. The first failing concerned a breach of the alleged requirement that the beneficiary should provide at least 50 % of the funds for supporting restructuring activities. The second failing related to non-performance of cross-control of farm animals in the context of the administrative monitoring of the initial request in regard to the correctness of the economic size unit (ESU) indicated by the farmer. The third failing related to a breach of an alleged requirement that an on-site inspection be effected in the first year in which the programme is carried out. The fourth failing, in the view of the Commission, lay in the absence of an appropriate connection between intermediate objectives and agricultural requirements. By contrast, the fifth failing concerned a breach of the alleged requirement that a quantitative definition of intermediate objectives be provided. The applicant takes issue with the Commission’s interpretation of the law and its determination of the facts in relation to each of the alleged failings mentioned above.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 291/4

Action brought on 21 August 2013 — Doux v Commission

(Case T-434/13)

2013/C 291/05

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Doux SA (Châteaulin, France) (represented by: J. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, since the contested regulation does not contain any statement of reasons. The applicant claims that the statement of reasons mentioned in the contested regulation is merely a standard statement of reasons which does not make it possible to follow the reasoning of the Commission, whereas the Commission should have indicated very specifically the considerations justifying moving from a refund of EUR 108,50 per tonne to EUR 0, particularly because it is breaking from its previous decision-making practice.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations since the Commission had assured operators that the refunds would be maintained until the entry into force of the new common agricultural policy. The applicant claims that the reduction in the refund from EUR 108,50 per tonne to EUR 0 was not foreseeable in the light of the situation in the poultry market.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Commission took the view that economic indicators justified setting the amount of refund at EUR 0 although the increase in market price will be mostly absorbed by the rise of the Euro against the Dollar. The applicant is thus of the opinion that economic indicators do not justify refunds being abolished.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Commission held that it would be appropriate for the contested regulation to enter into force immediately ‘in order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management’. The applicant submits that that statement of reasons, which is identical to that of preceding regulations, is particularly inadequate in the present case since the sudden removal of export refunds without prior notice, which would have permitted adaptation of the economic model of operators, could instead lead to internal market disruption.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Commission, since it did not adopt the contested regulation on a ground provided for in Regulation No 1234/2007. (1)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).
—

In case the Court’s decision, as sought, is taken after the tender is awarded to a bidder: — Annul the current tender No ENER/B1/2013-371 in order to give the applicant a chance to bid again; — Annul the decision to be taken by the European Commission granting tender No ENER/B1/2013-371 to a bidder; and/or — Grant damages in compensation of a missed opportunity, due to the exclusion of the applicant from the tender No ENER/B1/2013-371.