ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/86

Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

(Case T-691/15)

(2016/C 048/94)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl’ — Community trade mark No 11 406 782

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 2756/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 782 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705;

— order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/76

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament

(Case T-663/15)

(2016/C 048/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8360 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

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 a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

(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) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/57

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Dahllof v Parliament

(Case T-643/15)

(2016/C 048/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Staffan Dahllof (Kastrup, Denmark) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8678 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

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 a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

(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) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the applicant has a right to damages against the European Union under Article 268 and Article 340 second paragraph of the TFEU due to the General Court’s infringement of its rights under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to a judgment within a reasonable time. The failure to rule within a reasonable time period caused the applicant three types of loss between 12 February 2010 and 27 September 2012: (1) increased costs related to a bank guarantee for the amount of the fine that the applicant did not immediately pay to the Commission following the adoption of decision No C(2007)5791 final of 28 November 2007 in Case COMP/39165 — Flat glass; (2) opportunity costs because the low rate of interest on the amount of the fine belatedly returned to the applicant following the Court of Justice’s judgment in 2014 was much lower than the potential return that the applicant could have achieved if, instead of paying this money to the Commission in 2008, it had invested it in its business; and (3) non-pecuniary damages due to the decision wrongly having imposed the highest fine on the applicant in November 2007 and, due to the General Court’s failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time, this only being belatedly remedied by the Court of Justice in November 2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/45

Action brought on 22 December 2015 — FH Scorpio v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YO!)

(Case T-745/15)

(2016/C 059/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: FH Scorpio (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH (Nieder-Olm, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the contested mark: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘YO!’ — Application for registration No 11 208 436

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2015 in Case R 1546/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action well founded;

— annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns registration of the mark ‘YO!’ 011208436;

— alter the contested decision in such a way that the mark may be registered for all goods and services claimed;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/29

Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Frame v OHIM – Bianca-Moden (BIANCALUNA)

(Case T-627/15)

(2016/C 068/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Frame Srl (San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy) (represented by: M. Borghese, R. Giordano, and E. Montelione, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Ochtrup, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘BIANCALUNA’ — Application for registration No 11 251 808

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2015 in Case R 2952/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; and/or

— remit the case to OHIM so that the likelihood of confusion is properly analyzed taking into account the results of the proof of use filed by Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG;

— order OHIM to pay the costs both at the first instance and on the present proceedings;

— in the alternative, reform the contested decision so that the following goods in class 25 would be registered: underwear, pyjamas, t-shirts, panties, undues.

Pleas in law

— Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 207/2009 in selecting just one earlier right;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/27

Appeal brought on 28 November 2015 by Peter Schönberger against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 September 2015 in Case F-14/12 RENV, Schönberger v Court of Auditors

(Case T-688/15 P)

(2016/C 059/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by O.Mader, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant the form of order sought at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant seeks to have set aside the order of 30 September 2015 in Schönberger v Court of Auditors (F-14/12 RENV, ECRFP, EU:F:2015:112).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging the misapplication of Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal The appellant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) misapplied Article 81 of its Rules of Procedure in the contested decision and thereby infringed the appellant’s right to be heard and to a fair trial.

2. Second plea in law, alleging replacement of the grounds as a result of the consideration of arguments which were submitted late According to the appellant, the CST effected a replacement of grounds in so far as it relied on arguments which were presented by the defendant out of time.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the distortion of facts According to the appellant, the CST distorted the position of the Court of Auditors in so far as it maintained in the contested decision that the latter held that a comparison of the appellant's merits with those of the other officials eligible for promotion would not have resulted in the appellant’s promotion, although the Court of Auditors merely declared that the appellant would not be automatically promoted if a greater number of posts were available.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging erroneous application of a promotion criterion The appellant further claims that, when assessing his merits, the CST wrongly applied a promotion criterion which exceeds the criteria of the Court of Auditors and which is unnecessarily strict in so far as evidence was required to show that the appellant was one of the 53 officials eligible for promotion with the greatest merits.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging erroneous comparative assessment of the degree of responsibility exercised Furthermore, the appellant claims that the comparative assessment of his level of responsibility was undertaken by the CST without a factual basis and wrongly assumes an automatic priority for Heads of Unit.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging an incorrect assessment of the applicable promotion rate The appellant claims in that regard that the question of the applicable promotion rate concerns the substance of the dispute. It should, therefore, not have been dealt with in the context of the examination of admissibility.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/28

Action brought on 28 December 2015 — Labeyrie v OHIM — Delpeyrat (Representation of a sowing of light coloured fish on a dark background)

(Case T-767/15)

(2016/C 078/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Labeyrie (Saint-Geours-de-Maremne, France) (represented by: A. Lecomte, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delpeyrat (Saint Pierre du Mont, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark without any representation of colours (Representation of a sowing of light coloured fish on a dark background) — Community trade mark No 3 916 533

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for revocation

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 October 2015 in Case R 2694/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in that it confirmed the decision of the Invalidity Division of OHIM revoking the rights of the company LABEYRIE over its Community mark No 3 916 533 to designate fish;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made errors of assessment in determining that the relief from the Aggregates Levy for Northern Ireland was compatible with the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (1) (2008 Environmental Aid Guidelines), and thereby with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. In particular, the Commission has made errors of assessment in finding that the third limb of the necessity criterion under the 2008 Environmental Aid Guidelines had been fulfilled, namely whether or not Northern Irish quarries could not pass on the Aggregates Levy to customers without leading to important sales reductions.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in fact and in law in finding that the applicants engaged in an infringement of Article 101 TFEU by object. — The evidence cited against the applicants is insufficient to support the finding that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU by object. — The decision’s alternative finding according to which the applicants engaged in separate infringements of Article 101 TFEU by object is unproven and infringed the applicants’ rights of defence because it is made for the first time in the decision.
2.

Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU. That plea is composed of two branches: — First branch, concerning the applicability of the private investor test, which is divided into five parts. — First part, according to which the Commission, without justification or stating reasons, did not take into account numerous documents and pieces of evidence which were duly submitted to it by France and EDF; — Second part, according to which the Commission systematically confused the elements concerning respectively the applicability and the application of the private investor test. — Third part, according to which the Commission wrongly ruled out the applicability of the prudent private investor criterion, solely because, in examining the measure, France had taken into account inter alia considerations relating to its status as a public authority, alongside considerations relating to its status as a shareholder. — Fourth part, according to which the Commission wrongly individuated an obligation on the part of EDF to have a formal business plan in order to justify the applicability of the prudent private investor criterion. — Fifth part, according to which the Commission disregarded the nature and purpose of that measure, its context, the objective it pursued and the rules to which it was subject. — Second branch, concerning the application of the private investor test, which is divided into three parts. — First part, according to which the Commission wrongly concluded that the Oxera Report was not admissible as evidence. — Second part, according to which the Commission’s methodology is vitiated by clear failings. First, the Commission took into account neither the context of the period in question, nor the criteria that investors at that time would have used. Secondly, the Commission’s ‘tax gift’ hypothesis not only constitutes an error of law, but also gave rise to errors in the evaluation of the adequacy of the investment. In the third place, the Commission committed multiple methodological errors, each of which suffices to demonstrate clearly that the private investor criterion was not applied. — Third part, concerning the consequences of the methodological errors committed by the Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/55

Action brought on 19 January 2016 — Karl Conzelmann v OHIM (LIKE IT)

(Case T-21/16)

(2016/C 098/71)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Karl Conzelmann GmbH & Co. KG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, 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 ‘LIKE IT’ — Application No 13 180 104

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2015 in Case R 223/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/33

Action brought on 4 January 2016 — K&K Group v OHIM — Pret a Manger (Europe) (Pret A Diner)

(Case T-2/16)

(2016/C 078/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: K&K Group AG (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Pret A Diner’ — International registration No 1 113 460

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings.

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2015 in Case R 2825/2014-5

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 Articles 8(5), 15(1), 42(2) and 42(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that, in adopting the decision, the Commission engaged in manifest errors of law because the Treaties, the European Union Merger Regulation (‘EUMR’), the Merger decision and the Final Commitments do not leave any room for Clause 2.3 of the Self-Commitment letter as accepted by the decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/38

Action brought on 21 January 2016 — Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods v OHIM — Mueloliva (FONTOLIVA)

(Case T-24/16)

(2016/C 106/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: D. Martins Pereira, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mueloliva, SL (Cordoba, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘FONTOLIVA’ — International registration No 1 107 792 designating the European Union

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 November 2015 in Case R 1813/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— admit this action;

— dismiss the contested decision in its entirety;

— rectify the contested decision, based on the grounds in this action and declare the granting of protection to International Trademark No 1 107 792 FONTOLIVA in respect of the European Union;

— condemn OHIM in the incurred expenses by the applicant, including the expenses made in the case which run with OHIM;

— condemn the other party in the case to bear the applicant’s costs in the OHIM proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Lapse of earlier Spanish trademark No 780 071 FUENOLIVA;

— Insufficiency of the evidence of genuine use of earlier trademark;

— Inexistence of likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) CTMR;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/36

Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Infracore (PUMA)

(Case T-62/16)

(2016/C 118/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd (Incheon, South Korea)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: figurative mark containing the word element ‘PUMA’ — EU trade mark application No 11 376 209

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2015 in Case R 1052/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd. to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law