ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/18

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Couture Tech v OHIM (Representation of the Soviet coat of arms)

(Case T-232/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing the Soviet coat of arms - Absolute ground for refusal - Whether contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 319/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Couture Tech Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: B. Whyatt, Barrister)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2010 (Case R 1509/2008-2) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing the Soviet coat of arms as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Couture Tech Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/12

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Geemarc Telecom v OHIM — Audioline (AMPLIDECT)

(Case T-59/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark AMPLIDECT - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Acquisition of distinctive character through use - Evidence)

2012/C 13/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Geemarc Telecom International Ltd (Wanchai, Hong Kong) (represented by: G. Farrington, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Audioline GmbH (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: U. Blumenröder, P. Lübbe and B. Allekotte, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2009 (Case R 913/2009-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Audioline GmbH and Geemarc Telecom International Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Geemarc Telecom International Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 370/23

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2011 — Esprit International v OHIM — Marc O’Polo International (Representation of a letter on a pocket)

(Case T-22/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark consisting of the representation of a letter on a pocket - Earlier national figurative mark representing a letter - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 370/38

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Esprit International LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Treis and E.-M. Strobel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Marc O’Polo International GmbH (Stephanskirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Gaul, V. Spitz, T. Golda and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2009 (Case R 1666/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Marc O’Polo International GmbH and Esprit International LP.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Esprit International LP to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 58/9

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Hell Energy Magyarország v OHIM — Hansa Mineralbrunnen (HELL)

(Case T-522/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark HELL - Earlier Community word mark HELLA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 58/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hell Energy Magyarország kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Hansa Mineralbrunnen GmbH (Rellingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, V. von Bomhard, E. Nicolás Gómez and T. Dolde, lawyers)

Re:

Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2010 (Case R 1517/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Hansa Mineralbrunnen GmbH and Hell Energy Magyarország.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hell Energy Magyarország kft to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 SE — Blusen Stenau v OHIM (Sport Eybl & Sports Experts (SE© SPORTS EQUIPMENT)

(Case T-477/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community figurative mark SE© SPORTS EQUIPMENT - Prior national word mark SE So Easy - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

(2012/C 25/95)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SE — Blusen Stenau GmbH (Gronau, Germany) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: M. Pachinger and S. Fürst., lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2010 (Case R 139372009-1) concerning an opposition procedure between SE — Blusen Stenau GmbH and Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 July 2010 (Case R 139372009-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by SE — Blusen Stenau GmbH;

3. Orders Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 126/14

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2012 — Ella Valley Vineyards v OHIM — HFP (ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS)

(Case T-32/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS - Earlier national and Community trade marks ELLE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of association - Link between the signs - Reputation - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2012/C 126/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ella Valley Vineyards (Adulam) Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel) (represented by: C. de Haas and O. Vanner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Hachette Filipacchi Presse (HFP) (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by: C. Moyou Joly, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2009 (Case R 1293/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Hachette Filipacchi Presse (HFP) and Ella Valley Vineyards (Adulam) Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 November 2009 (Case R 1293/2008-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ella Valley Vineyards (Adulam) Ltd;

3. Orders Hachette Filipacchi Presse (HFP) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 109/10

Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2012 — Certmedica International GmbH v OHIM — Lehning entreprise (L112) and Lehning entreprise v OHIM — Certmedica International (L112)

(Joined Cases T-77/10 and T-78/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark L112 - Earlier French word mark L.114 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Declaration of partial invalidity)

2012/C 109/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Certmedica International GmbH (Aschaffenburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Pfortner, lawyer) (Case T-77/10); and Lehning entreprise (Sainte-Barbe, France) (represented by P. Demoly, lawyer) (Case T-78/10)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, interveners before the General Court: Lehning entreprise (Case T-77/10) and Certmedica International GmbH (Case T-78/10)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2009 (Case R 934/2009-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Lehning entreprise and Certmedica International GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. In Case T-77/10: — annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 December 2009 (Case R 934/2009-2) in so far as it declares the registration of the mark L112 to be invalid in respect of ‘veterinary preparations’; — dismisses the action as to the remainder; — orders Certmedica International GmbH and OHIM to bear their own costs; — orders Lehning entreprise to pay the costs incurred in connection with its intervention.

2. In Case T-78/10: — dismisses the action; — orders Lehning entreprise to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM; — orders Certmedica International to pay the costs incurred in connection with its intervention.

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/14

Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Aitic Penteo v OHIM — Atos Worldline (PENTEO)

(Case T-585/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PENTEO - Earlier Benelux and international word marks XENTEO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2012/C 200/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aitic Penteo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Atos Worldline SA (Brussels, Belgium)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Chamber of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2010 (Case R 774/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Atos Worldline SA and Aitic Penteo, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Aitic Penteo, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/11

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2012 — Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — Pi-Design and Others (Representation of a surface with black dots)

(Case T-416/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark representing a surface with black dots - Shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 184/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd (Tsubame-shi, Japan) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Pi-Design AG (Triengen, Switzerland), Bodum France (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) and Bodum Logistics A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by H. Pernez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1237/2008-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S, on the one hand, and Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd, on the other hand

Operative part of the judgment

The Court (Fourth Chamber):

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1237/2008-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd;

3. Orders Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S to bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/13

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2012 — Bolloré v Commission

(Case T-372/10) (1)

(Competition - Cartels - Carbonless paper market - Price-fixing - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Decision taken following the annulment of a first decision - Imputation of the infringement to the parent company, as directly responsible - Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege - Legal certainty - Individual nature of penalties - Fair hearing - Equal treatment - Reasonable time - Rights of the defence - Fines - Limitation period - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation)

2012/C 235/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bolloré (Ergué-Gabéric, France) (represented by: P. Gassenbach, C. Lemaire and O. de Juvigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment or alteration of Commission Decision C(2010) 4160 final of 23 June 2010, relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/36.212 — Carbonless paper).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bolloré to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/19

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Seikoh Giken v OHIM — Seiko Holdings (SG SEIKOH GIKEN)

(Case T-519/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration - Application for territorial extension of the protection - Figurative mark SG SEIKOH GIKEN - Earlier Community word mark SEIKO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 217/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kabushiki Kaisha Seikoh Giken (Matsudo-shi Chiba, Japan) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda and G. Macias Bonilla, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Seiko Holdings Kabushiki Kaisha (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. Fish, R. Miller, Solicitors and A. Bryson, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 August 2010 (Case R 1553/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Seiko Holdings Kabushiki Kaisha and Kabushiki Kaisha Seikoh Giken.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kabushiki Kaisha Seikoh Giken to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/15

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2012 — HerkuPlast Kubern v OHIM — How (eco-pack)

(Case T-445/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark eco-pack - Earlier national and international word marks ECOPAK - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 343/25

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: HerkuPlast Kubern GmbH (Ering, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Heidi A.T. How (Harrow, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 July 2010 (Case R 2014/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between HerkuPlast Kubern GmbH and Heidi A.T. How.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 27 July 2010 (Case R 2014/2009-4);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by HerkuPlast Kubern GmbH and to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/17

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Commission v Nanopoulos

(Case T-308/10) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Duty to provide assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Non-contractual liability - Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations - Damages claim to be submitted within a reasonable time - Time-limit for reply - Institution of disciplinary proceedings - Criterion requiring a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ - Personal data leaked to the press - Failure to assign tasks corresponding to an official’s grade - Amount of damages)

2012/C 258/29

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, E. Bourtzalas and E. Antypas, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Fotios Nanopoulos (Itzig, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 11 May 2010 in Case F-30/08 Nanopoulos v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking, first, to have that judgment set aside and, second, if the judgment is to be upheld, to have the exact amount of damages set.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Nanopoulos in the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/22

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 — riha v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL&FIT)

(Case T-552/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark VITAL&FIT - Earlier national word mark VITAFIT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2012/C 379/38

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: riha Richard Hartinger Getränke GmbH & Co. Handels-KG (Rinteln, Germany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and D. Walicka, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lidl Stiftund & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Schaeffer and A. Marx, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2010 (Case R 1229/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftund & Co. KG and riha Richard Hartinger Getränke GmbH & Co. Handels-KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders: riha Richard Hartinger Getränke GmbH & Co. Handels-KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 30 of 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/23

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2012 — Jurašinović v Council

(Case T-63/10) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request for access to certain documents exchanged with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia during proceedings - Refusal to grant access - Risk of undermining the protection of international relations - Risk of undermining the protection of judicial proceedings and legal advice)

2012/C 355/49

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ivan Jurašinović (Angers, France) (represented by: N. Amara-Lebret, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially C. Fekete and K. Zieleśkiewicz, subsequently C. Fekete and J. Herrmann)

Re:

By way of principal claim, annulment of the Council’s decision of 7 December 2009 refusing it access to the Council’s decisions relating to the transmission to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia of the documents which that Tribunal requested in connection with the proceedings relating to Mr Ante Gotovina and all the correspondence exchanged in that connection by the EU Institutions and that Tribunal, including any annexes, and particularly the initial requests for documents from both that Tribunal and Mr Gotovina’s lawyers.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the Council’s decision of 7 December 2009 refusing Mr Ivan Jurašinović access to the Council’s decisions relating to the transmission to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia of the documents which that Tribunal requested in connection with the proceedings relating to Mr Ante Gotovina and all the correspondence exchanged in that connection by the EU Institutions and that Tribunal, including any annexes, and particularly the initial requests for documents from both that Tribunal and Mr Gotovina’s lawyers, in so far as he was refused access to correspondence between the Council and that Tribunal, and to documents other than the reports drawn up by the European Community’s surveillance mission, annexed to that correspondence;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.