ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/37

Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Herbert Smith Freehills/Commission

(Case T-755/14)

(2015/C 026/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Herbert Smith Freehills LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Wytinck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision GESTDEM 2014/2070 of the European Commission, of 24 September 2014, and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the Applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Applicant seeks the annulment of Decision GESTDEM 2014/2070, of 24 September 2014, whereby the Commission refused the Applicant’s request for access under Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) to certain documents related to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 3 April 2014, on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (2).

In support of this action, the Applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that none of the undisclosed documents identified by the Commission falls within the scope of the exception relating to the protection of court proceedings.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that certain undisclosed documents identified by the Commission do not fall within the scope of the exception relating to the protection of legal advice.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents identified pursuant to the Applicant's access to documents request.

(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) OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/59

Action brought on 3 December 2014 — August Storck v OHIM (Representation of a square-shaped packaging in white and blue)

(Case T-806/14)

(2015/C 046/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr, T. Melchert and A. Richter, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of a packaging in the shape of a square) — International registration No 1 169 244 designating the European Union

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 in Case R 644/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 November 2014 — Red Lemon v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)

(Case T-775/14)

(2015/C 073/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: the applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark including the word element ‘ABTRONIC’ — Application No 8 534 811

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2014 in Case R 2060/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject the opposition;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/38

Action brought on 5 December 2014 — AATC Trading/OHIM — El Corte Inglés (ALAΪA PARIS)

(Case T-794/14)

(2015/C 065/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: AATC Trading AG (Steinhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Lê Dai, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘ALAÏA PARIS’ No 3 485 166

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2014 in Case R 1411/2013-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated the applicant’s right to be heard, in particular by failing to adopt a new statement of objections. The applicant submits that: — the Commission failed to present the evidence in a way which would have enabled the applicant to identify the conduct complained of and to defend itself properly; — the Commission has violated Infineon’s procedural rights by introducing key pieces of evidence at a very late stage and as a result Infineon could not defend itself in a comprehensive reply to a statement of objections and was denied the opportunity to rebut the evidence used against it in an oral hearing; and — some of the documents the Commission based itself on have not been disclosed to Infineon and cannot be used against it.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 81/23

Action brought on 30 December 2014 — Nutria v Commission

(Case T-832/14)

(2015/C 081/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nutria AE (Agios Konstantinos Locrida, Greece) (represented by: M.-J. Jacquot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Commission to pay it the sum of EUR 5 2 04 350 for the harm suffered;

— order the Commission to pay it additional compensation in the amount of EUR 12 000 for the costs of proceedings incurred.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging breach of Article 191 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), because of the Commission’s refusal to extend the deadline by which the Greek part of the food distribution programme for the most deprived people in the Community was to be implemented.

(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).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 January 2015 — Internet Consulting v OHIM — Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige (SUEDTIROL)

(Case T-11/15)

(2015/C 073/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Internet Consulting GmbH (Brunico, Italy) (represented by: L. Miori and A. Bertella, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige (Bolzano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Internet Consulting GmbH

Trade mark at issue: Word mark ‘SUEDTIROL’ — Community trade mark No 2 826 931

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2014 in Case R 574/2013-G

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul or alter in full the contested decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2014, notified on 13 November 2014, refusing in any event the application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano in respect of the Community trade mark Suedtirol;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal before OHIM and the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement and/or misapplication of Articles 5 and 56 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/36

Action brought on 20 January 2015 — Infinite Cycle Works v OHIM — Chance Good Ent. (INFINITY)

(Case T-30/15)

(2015/C 089/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Infinite Cycle Works Ltd (Delta, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chance Good Ent. Co., Ltd (Changhua, Taiwan)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘INFINITY’ — Application for registration No 1 0 8 35 478

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2014 in Case R 2308/2013-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision and grant the trademark applied for;

— Order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/42

Action brought on 27 January 2015 — ASPLA and Armando Álvarez v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-40/15)

(2015/C 089/51)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Plásticos Españoles, SA (ASPLA) (Torrelavega, Spain) and Armando Álvarez, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer, C. Ruixó Claramunt and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— primarily, order the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 3 4 95 038,66 for the damage caused to the applicants by the General Court’s infringement of Article 47, second paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to which amount must be added compensatory and default interest applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations, to which two basis points have been added, from the date the application was lodged;

— consequently order the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings;

— in the alternative, order the European Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 3 4 95 038,66 for the damage caused to the applicants by the General Court’s infringement of Article 47, second paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to which amount must be added compensatory and default interest applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations, to which two basis points have been added, from the date the application was lodged; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The plaintiffs complain of the Court’s delay in giving judgment on the actions brought by them in Cases T-76/06 ASPLA v Commission and T-78/06 Armando Álvarez v Commission in which judgment was delivered on 16 December 2011, and, on appeal, on 22 May 2014.

In support of their application, the applicants allege infringement of Article 47, second paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which in their opinion is a reaffirmation of the principle of effective judicial protection, a general principle of EU law.

In their view, the existence of conduct contrary to the above provision and, accordingly, the infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection are demonstrated sufficiently clearly by the judgments of the Court in Cases C-58/12 P Groupe Gascogne v Commission and C-50/12 P Kendrion NV v Commission. It should be noted in that regard that both companies were subject to the same decision imposing penalties as Kendrion and Groupe Gascogne. Like both those companies, they brought an action against the decision imposing penalties and, in proceedings before the General Court which are very similar, if not virtually identical, to those in respect of which the Court of Justice gave judgment in the two cases cited above, were faced with a failure on the part of the General Court to observe a reasonable time for adjudication.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/34

Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft v OHIM (Brauwelt)

(Case T-56/15)

(2015/C 118/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Höfler, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Brauwelt’– Application No 1 2 0 38 551

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 in Case R 1121/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 February 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (Parallel stripes)

(Case T-63/15)

(2015/C 107/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (representation of two parallel stripes) — Application for registration No 10 926 764

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2014 in Case R 2560/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/32

Action brought on 16 February 2015 — Mudhook Marketing v OHIM (IPVanish)

(Case T-78/15)

(2015/C 127/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mudhook Marketing, Inc. (Winter Park, United States) (represented by: A. Dellmeier and H. Eckermann, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘IPVanish’ — Application for registration No 2 330 271

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 in Case R 1417/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/44

Action brought on 23 February 2015 — Niagara Bottling v OHIM (NIAGARA)

(Case T-89/15)

(2015/C 118/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Niagara Bottling LLC (Ontario, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: International registration No 1 153 535 designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘NIAGARA’

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2014 in Case R 784/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea: breach of the principles of legality, of cooperation in good faith, of the protection of legitimate expectations, and of the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti In this respect, the applicant argues that if the Commission, before 8 August 2008 (the date on which the applicant approved an amendment to the restructuring plan concerning the preservation of the silos), had answered the applicant’s written question about the preservation of certain structures, if it had amended and supplemented Regulation No 968/2006 (1) and if, having received the communication relating to the alteration of the restructuring programme, it had informed the applicant of the alleged irregularity concerning the preservation of the silos, or if it had written to all the Member States informing them of its interpretation of the unclear provisions of the relevant legislation, the financial correction at issue would not have been made and the contested decision would not have been adopted.
Second plea in law: Inapplicability of the Environmental and Energy State Aid Guidelines (EEAG) relevant to the adjustment plan

The applicant asserts that the relevant EEAG with regard to the recovery amount pursuant to Article 3 of the Commission decision at issue, which apply from 1 July 2014, are, in the absence of the classification as State aid of the EEG surcharge system and special compensation regime of the EEG-Act 2012 instruments referred to and in the light of the principle of legality of administrative actions also applicable at EU level, not applicable to those instruments.
2.

Second plea, alleging breach of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (JO 2006 L 171, p. 60), breach of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (JO 2006 L 176, p. 32), and that the Commission acted at odds with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 November in C-187/12, C-188/12 and C-189/12, SFIR and Others (EU:C:2013:737).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/26

Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Lions Gate Entertainment v OHIM (DIRTY DANCING)

(Case T-179/15)

(2015/C 190/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lions Gate Entertainment Inc. (Santa Monica, United States) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor, and J. Hill, Barrister)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘DIRTY DANCING’ — Application for registration No 12 036 265

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2015 in Case R 2252/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to the principle of legal certainty The applicant claims that the contested decision is contrary to the principle of legal certainty because (i) the decision identifies bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) as a substance disrupting endocrinal activity where EU law does not lay down a definition of such a substance or criteria for its identification and where that definition or those criteria are drawn up by the European Commission on the basis of regulations and decisions of the Council and the Parliament, and (ii) that decision was adopted at a time when the procedure was still ongoing, albeit at an advanced stage, for authorisation of the substance DEHP identified as a substance toxic for reproduction under Article 57(c) of Regulation No 1907/2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/40

Action brought on 1 April 2015 — LG Developpement v OHIM — Bayerische Motoren Werke (MINICARGO)

(Case T-160/15)

(2015/C 198/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Developpement (Baud, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (München, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘MINICARGO’ — Application for registration No 11 278 751

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2015 in Case R 596/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/42

Action brought on 17 April 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission

(Case T-188/15)

(2015/C 198/57)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA (Arzano, Italy); Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA (Biella, Italy); Actv SpA (Venice, Italy); Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl (Bari, Italy); Asstra Associazione Trasporti (Rome, Italy); and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (Rome) (represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should annul those chapters and parts of the contested decision which are subject to appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-187/15 Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 228/22

Action brought on 15 May 2015 — Łabowicz v. OHIM — Pure Fishing (NANO)

(Case T-237/15)

(2015/C 228/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Edward Łabowicz (Kłodzko, Poland) (represented by: M. Żygadło, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pure Fishing, Inc. (Spirit Lake, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘NANO’– Community trade mark No 6 649 818

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 in Case R 2426/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Articles 76 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

order the Council to pay its own costs and the costs of the applicant, which he reserves the right to justify during the course of the proceedings.