ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/18

Action brought on 3 January 2012 — Kreyenberg v OHIM — Commission (MEMBER OF €e euro experts)

(Case T-3/12)

2012/C 65/35

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Heinrich Kreyenberg (Ratingen, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 October 2011 in Case R 1804/2010-2; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MEMBER OF €e euro experts’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 44 and 45

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: European Commission

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is an alleged danger that the public will be misled as regards the quality of the goods and services designated by the mark; infringement of Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation No 207/2009 as it is alleged that the mark contains a heraldic imitation of European flag No 3556 (circular number) deposited at WIPO pursuant to Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property; and infringement of Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009 as it is alleged that the applicant’s mark monopolises the ‘€’ symbol which was determined graphically by the Communication from the European Commission COM (97) 418 final.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no identical reproduction of the official ‘€’ sign which is necessary for that article to apply; in the alternative, the conditions relating to the derogation in Article 6ter(1)(c) of the Paris Convention have in any event been met as the public would not assume that the applicant’s figurative mark is connected with the European Monetary Union (or the European Union); in the alternative, infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (g) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the European Commission expressly referred to Article 7(1)(c) in its application for a declaration of invalidity, with the result that it can only be assumed that there was an error in making the application and that its reliance on the ground for refusal in Article 7(1)(g) for the first time in the appeal proceedings must be regarded as belated and inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 157/8

Action brought on 20 March 2012 — Interroll v OHIM (Inspired by efficiency)

(Case T-126/12)

2012/C 157/14

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Interroll Holding AG (Sant’ Antonino, Switzerland) (represented by R. Böhm, lawyer)

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

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 12 January 2012 (Case R 1280/2011-1);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Inspired by efficiency’ (application No 9 725 359) for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 9, 20, 35, 39 and 42.

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the trade mark applied for has distinctive character and is not descriptive of the goods and services at issue in the proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/20

Action brought on 2 January 2012 — France v Commission

(Case T-1/12)

2012/C 80/35

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Decision C(2011) 7808 final of 24 October 2011, by which the Commission declared incompatible with the common market the restructuring aids which the French authorities proposed to grant to SeaFrance SA in the form of an increase in capital and loans granted by SNCF to SeaFrance.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the concept of aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU when the Commission found that the question whether the two loans proposed by SNCF were reasonable had to be considered together with the rescue and restructuring aid. This plea is divided into two branches based: — first, on the fact that the Commission incorrectly interpreted the Court’s judgment in Case T-11/95 BP Chemicals v Commission [1998] ECR II-3235; and — second, in the alternative, on the fact that the Commission incorrectly applied that judgment of the Court.

2. Second plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU when the Commission found, for the sake of completeness, that the French authorities have not proved that, considered in isolation, the two loans proposed by SNCF would have been granted at a market rate. That plea is divided into two branches based on: — first, the fact that the Commission incorrectly excluded the two loans at issue from the application of the Commission Communication of 19 January 2008 on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates; (1) and — second, the fact that the Commission incorrectly found that, to be compatible with the market, the rate of the loans in question should have been around 14 %.

3. Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and of fact when the Commission found that the restructuring aid is incompatible with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, interpreted in the light of the guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 345 TFEU which provides that the Treaties are not in any way to prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership.

(1) OJ 2008 C 14, p. 6.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/26

Action brought on 6 February 2012 — ABC-One v OHIM (SLIM BELLY)

(Case T-61/12)

2012/C 98/43

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ABC-One Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH (Villach St. Magdalen, Austria) (represented by S. Merz, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 November 2011 in Case R 1077/2011-1 concerning the application for registration of the word sign ‘SLIM BELLY’ as a Community trade mark;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SLIM BELLY’ (application No 8 576 811) for goods and services in Classes 28, 41 and 44

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for has distinctive character and is not descriptive of the goods and services at issue
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/28

Action brought on 19 January 2012 — IDT Biologika v Commission

(Case T-30/12)

2012/C 89/46

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: IDT Biologika GmbH (Dessau-Roßlau, Germany) (represented by: R. Gross and T. Kroupa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 5 October 2011 rejecting the tender submitted in respect of Lot No 1 by IDT Biologika GmbH in response to the call for tenders, reference EuropeAid/130686/C/SUP/RS Re-launch LOT 1, for the supply of a rabies vaccine to the beneficiary Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Supply of the Republic of Serbia, and awarding the contract in question to a consortium of various companies led by ‘Biovet a. s.’;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action the applicant alleges infringement of Article 252(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2342/2002 (1) as the applicant takes the view that the successful tender does not fulfil the technical requirements specified in the tender documents with regard to the requisite non-virulence to humans of the vaccine offered and with regard to the requisite authorisations and should not therefore have been taken into account.

Furthermore, the taking into account of the successful tender of the consortium led by ‘Biovet a. s.’ constitutes discrimination as regards price comparison since the applicant’s tender alone satisfies all the actual requirements made with regard to the technical specifications in respect of the award procedure at issue and is therefore the only tender in the procedure which is in order.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/15

Action brought on 5 April 2012 — IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission

(Case T-157/12)

2012/C 184/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IFP Energies nouvelles (Rueil-Malmaison, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Decision C(2011) 4483 final of 29 June 2011 relating to State aid No NN C 35/2008 (ex NN 11/2008) granted by France to the public body, the Institut Français du Pétrole (French Petroleum Institute; ‘IFP’), in its entirety.

— 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 error in law, in that the Commission exceeded the limits on its powers to interpret national law under the legislation governing State aid.

2. Second plea in law, alleging failure by the Commission to establish the existence of a real economic advantage conferred on the applicant and its private-law subsidiaries.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that the reference in the contested decision to the 2008 Commission Notice on guarantees (1) is not in itself sufficient to establish the existence of an economic advantage.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the determination of the alleged advantage and the intensity of the presumed State aid.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, first, in making the creation of an industrial and commercial public body (EPIC) subject to an obligation of prior notification and, second, in imposing overly restrictive conditions.

(1) Commission Notice on the application of Articles [107 TFEU] and [108 TFEU] of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (OJ 2008 C 155, p. 10).
—

Order the defendant to allow the applicants to rely on the requested documents in the proceedings before the Paris Court of Appeals in which the applicants challenge the decision of the French Autorité de la Concurrence of 8 December 2011 (or in proceedings before the Autorité de la Concurrence, should the latter decide to reopen its case);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/23

Action brought on 13 April 2012 — Brauerei Beck v OHIM — Aldi (Be Light)

(Case T-172/12)

2012/C 194/40

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Brauerei Beck GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany)

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 19 January 2012 in case R 2258/2010-1;

— Order the defendant to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant;

— Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear its own costs, in the event it intervenes before the General Court.

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 ‘Be Light’, for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 7165351

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 135285 of the word mark ‘BECK’s’, for goods in class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods in class 32 and allowed the contested trade mark to proceed for the remaining goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s assessment of the parties’ efficiencies claims was vitiated by manifest errors and not supported by cogent and consistent evidence. The Commission inaccurately accepted only some of the efficiencies as verifiable, merger-specific and likely to directly benefit customers, and incorrectly claimed that they were insufficient to counteract the competitive effects of the merger. In relation to its evaluation of both collateral savings and liquidity benefits, the Commission violated the parties’ right to be heard by relying on evidence and arguments introduced after the oral hearing on which the parties were not given opportunity to comment. The Commission’s ‘claw back’ theory and its assessment of the merger-specificity of collateral savings were based on new theories and requirements that are not supported by the Commission’s Horizontal Merger Guidelines (1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 109/26

Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Zavvar v Council

(Case T-69/12)

2012/C 109/55

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Seyed Hadi Zavvar (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC (Queen’s Counsel), and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul paragraph 22 of table A of Annex to Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

— Annul paragraph 22 of table A of Annex to Regulation 1245/2011 (2), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

— Declare Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2011/783/CFSP, inapplicable to the applicant;

— Declare Article 16(2) of Regulation 961/2010, as implemented by Regulation 1245/2011, inapplicable to the applicant; and

— Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the present action.

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 criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Regulation 961/2010 are not met in the applicant’s case;

2. Second plea in law, alleging — that the imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant is in manifest violation of the applicant’s human an fundamental rights and is contrary to the principle of proportionality;

3. Third plea in law, alleging — that restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant by the Council in violation of the Council’s procedural obligations and the applicant’s right of defence;

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging — that insofar as the listed banks’ respective applications for annulment of their respective designations are successful, the applicant’s own designation must be annulled.

(1) Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71)

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 109/21

Action brought on 7 February 2012 — AMC-Representações Têxteis v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO KIDS COMPANY)

(Case T-50/12)

2012/C 109/45

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: AMC-Representações Têxteis Lda (Taveiro, Portugal) (represented by: V. Caires Soares, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

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 24 November 2011 in case R 2314/2010-1;

— Order the Defendant and, as appropriate, the Intervener in the proceedings to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘METRO KIDS COMPANY’, for goods and services in classes 24, 25 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 8200909

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: International trade mark registration No 852751 of the figurative mark ‘METRO’, for goods and services in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the confronted marks were similar and the likelihood of confusion and/or association could not be excluded.
First ground, alleging infringement of the right of access to his lawful judge, Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter) and Article 4(4) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The appellant argues in this connection that the case was first assigned to another chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal and that there was no legal basis for the second assignment undertaken thereafter.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/28

Action brought on 16 February 2012 — Nu Air Polska v Commission

(Case T-75/12)

2012/C 118/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nu Air Polska sp. z o.o. (Warszawa, Poland) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Declare the application admissible;

— Partially annul Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8826, Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8803 and Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8801, all three decisions being dated 6 December 2011, insofar as they only grant a partial refund of the anti-dumping duties paid by the applicant and unlawfully retain additional amounts of refunds of anti-dumping duties legitimately due to the applicant;

— Order maintenance in force of the contested decisions until the European Commission has adopted measures necessary to comply with any judgment of the Court; and

— Order the defendant to pay the legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in applying an appropriate and reasonable unrelated EU importer profit margin, thereby failing to establish a reliable export price for the purpose of calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amount leading to infringements of Articles 2(9) and 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. (1)

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by deducting anti-dumping duties as a cost in the calculation of the export price thereby failing to establish a reliable dumping margin for the purpose of calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amount and in doing so violated Articles 2(9), 2(11) and 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to inform it of the necessary requirements for satisfying Article 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 in a prompt and adequate manner thereby committing violations of the rights of defence enshrined in EU general law as well as the principle of sound administration also established in EU general law and also Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 on Protection Against Dumped Imports From Countries not Members of the European Community, OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51.