ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/55

Action brought on 27 June 2014 — Grandi Navi Veloci v Commission

(Case T-506/14)

2014/C 282/74

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Grandi Navi Veloci SpA (Palermo, Italy) (represented by: S. Grassani, S. Ravenna and A. Franchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul European Commission decision C (2013) 9101 final of 22 January 2014 to the extent that the Commission found that the subsidy granted to Saremar for carrying out promotional activities and the guarantees (banking facilities and comfort letters) provided by the Region of Sardinia do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant contests European Commission decision C (2013) 9101 final of 22 January 2014 relating to the aid measures implemented by the Autonomous Region of Sardinia in favour of Saremar (Cases SA.32014 (2011/C), SA.32015 (2011/C), SA.32016 (2011/C)). By that decision the Commission found, inter alia, that the subsidy granted to Saremar for carrying out promotional activities and the guarantees (banking facilities and comfort letters) provided by the Region of Sardinia do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law:

1. By its first plea, alleging infringement and incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU, Grandi Navi Veloci submits that the decision is flawed in relation to the finding that Saremer gained no economic advantage in respect of the funds paid by the Region of Sardinia for the supposed promotional activities. According to the applicant, the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as it found that the price paid by the Region of Sardinia as consideration for the promotional activities entrusted to Saremar, amounting to EUR 3 0 00 000, reflected market value and held that no economic advantage accrued to the recipient.

2. By its second plea, Grandi Navi Veloci submits, first, that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the method employed by the expert commissioned by the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa) was inadequate and, second, that the Commission acted improperly by failing to carry out investigations and acting in breach of the principle of sound administration.

3. By its third plea, Grandi Navi Veloci submits that the decision is contradictory and does not state adequate reasons for the purposes of Article 296 TFEU in relation to the finding that the measure relating to the supposed promotional activities does not constitute State aid.
—

in the further alternative, annul Article 2(m) of the Commission decision and reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in view of the applicants’ substantially limited involvement in the period between 26 July 2006 and 10 April 2008; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/50

Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v. OHIM (ELITEPAD)

(Case T-470/14)

2014/C 292/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (Houston, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 in Case R 884/2013-2;

— Award the costs of the proceedings against the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ELITEPAD’ for goods in Class 9 Community trade mark application No 1 1 3 18 284

Decision of the Examiner: The application was refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was rejected

Pleas in law: Violation of Art. 7 (1) (c) and Art. 7 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003, the principle of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality as regards the determination of the basic amount of the fine and in particular as regards the gravity of the infringement. The applicants submit that the basic amount of the fine, as well as the entry fee, are disproportionate and should have been adjusted in light of the limited scope of the infringement, the lack of impact on prices, the loosening of the alleged coordination after 2004 and the significant impact of the costs of raw material on the value of sales. The applicants further submit that the Commission breached the principle of equal treatment as it applied different gravity factors and entry fees to addressees in comparable situations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/39

Action brought on 16 June 2014 — ABB v Commission

(Case T-445/14)

2014/C 303/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ABB Ltd (Zürich, Switzerland); and ABB AB (Västerås, Sweden) (represented by: I. Vandenborre and S. Dionnet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul in part Article 1 of the decision finding that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement in the (extra) high voltage underground and/or submarine power cable sector insofar as the finding extends to all projects for underground power cables with voltages of 110 kV and above (and not only underground power cable projects with voltages of 220 kV and above);

— annul in part Article 1 of the decision finding that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement in the (extra) high voltage underground and/or submarine power cable sector insofar as the finding extends to all accessories relating to underground power cable projects with voltages of 110 kV and above (and not only accessories relating to underground power cable projects with voltages of 220 kV and above);

— annul in part Article 1 of the decision insofar as it finds that the applicants’ participation in the infringement started on 1 April 2000;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicants seek the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 — Power Cables.

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to meet its burden of proof and committed a manifest error of assessment in assuming that the infringement covered all underground power cable projects with voltages of 110 kV and above, when the Commission’s file contained clear indications that not all projects with voltages below 220 kV were subject to the infringement.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not meet its burden of proof in establishing the applicants’ participation in such an infringement covering all underground power cable projects with voltages of 110 kV and above.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in including within the scope of the infringement all underground power cable accessories relating to underground cable projects with a voltage of 110 kV and above, when the evidence in the Commission’s file showed that the infringement extended only to power cables accessories relating to underground power cable projects with a voltage of 220 kV and above.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law when finding that the applicants participated in the infringement as from 1 April 2000.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and breached the presumption of innocence by assuming that the applicants’ participation in the infringement started on the earliest possible date.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 339/27

Action brought on 29 July 2014 — Inditex v OHIM — Ansell (ZARA)

(Case T-584/14)

2014/C 339/32

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: C. Duch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zainab Ansell and Roger Ansell (Moshi, Tanzania)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General 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 19 May 2014 in Case R 1118/2013-2 in so far as it confirmed the revocation for non-use of the Community trade mark ‘ZARA’ No 1 12 755 in respect of the following services in Class 39: ‘services in relation to the transport and distribution of goods, in particular, articles of clothing, shoes and accessories, perfumery and cosmetics’, inasmuch as the Board of Appeal infringed Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 by making the following errors:

— error of law by the Board of Appeal in regarding the franchisees of Inditex as integral entities of the internal organisation of the company when, in fact, they are legal entities independent of the Inditex Group;

— error in the assessment of the evidence, inasmuch as the Board of Appeal criticises the appellant for failing to adduce evidence of the turnover generated by the supply of transport services for the purposes of proving external use of the mark, and despite the fact that such evidence was adduced in the proceedings;

— order OHIM, and if appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Word mark ‘ZARA’ for services in Classes 39 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 12 755

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Zainab Ansell and Roger Ansell

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for revocation granted

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 329/22

Action brought on 11 July 2014 — Laboratoire Nuxe v OHIM — NYX, Los Angeles (NYX)

(Case T-537/14)

2014/C 329/30

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire Nuxe (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: NYX, Los Angeles Inc. (California, United States)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 8 April 2014 in Case R 1575/2013-5;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: NYX, Los Angeles Inc.

Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of the figurative mark including the word element ‘NYX’ for goods in Class 3 — international registration designating the European Union No 1 1 0 52 316

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘NUXE’ for goods and services in Classes 3 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and the opposition rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/21

Action brought on 30 July 2014 — Vierling v OHMI — IP Leanware (BRAINCUBE)

(Case T-581/14)

2014/C 351/26

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Yvonne Vierling (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and D. Kipping, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IP Leanware (Issoire, France)

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 30 April 2014 given in Case R 1486/2013-2.

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 word mark ‘BRAINCUBE’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 38 — Community trade mark application No 10 461 713

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The earlier German trade mark of the word mark ‘Braincube’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/28

Action brought on 12 August 2014 — Bice International v OHIM — Bice (bice)

(Case T-624/14)

2014/C 351/36

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bice International Ltd (Dubai, United Arabs Emirates) (represented by: N. Gibb, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bice AG (Baar, Switzerland)

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 23 May 2014 given in Case R 1249/2013-1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘bice’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30 and 43 — Community trade mark registration No 5 1 26 693

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

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the CTM application was filed in bad faith, within the meaning of Article 52(1)(b) CTMR and registered in breach of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) CTMR

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for invalidity in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 52(1)(b), 53(1)(a) in conjunction with 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/24

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO ORGANIC)

(Case T-610/14)

2014/C 361/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 June 2014 in case R 301/2014-4;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘BIO ORGANIC’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 2 0 06 409

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/18

Action brought on 28 July 2014 — Yoo Holdings v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YOO)

(Case T-562/14)

2014/C 351/22

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Yoo Holdings Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

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

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 29 April 2014 given in Case R 762/2013-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘YOO’ for the services in Classes 35, 41 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 10 487 924

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: National and International trade mark registration for the word mark ‘YO’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision and upheld the opposition in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/19

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

(Case T-598/14)

2014/C 361/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

— in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 10 000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/21

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

(Case T-604/14)

2014/C 361/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

— in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council (1).

(1) OJ C 290, p. 13.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 380/18

Action brought on 28 August 2014 — Dellmeier/OHMI — Dell (LEXDELL)

(Case T-641/14)

2014/C 380/24

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alexandra Dellmeier (München, Germany) (represented by: J. Khöber, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dell, Inc. (Round Rock, US)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal No R 0966/2013-2 of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market dated 4 June 2014 regarding the opposition proceedings No B 1 698 2892 against Community Trademark Application No 008114779 ‘LEXDELL’ and reject the opposition in its entirety.

— Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court.

— Set a date for an Oral Hearing for the case that findings of the Court are not possible without an Oral Hearing.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: The community word mark ‘LEXDELL’ for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 41 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 8 1 14 779.

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: Community figurative trade mark containing the verbal element ‘DELL’ registered under the No 6 4 20 641.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 372/21

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Cham and Bena Properties v Council

(Case T-597/14)

2014/C 372/26

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Cham Holding Co. SA and Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet D’Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— declare the applicants’ action admissible and well founded;

— consequently, order the European Union to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicants arising from the suspension of the ‘Yasmeen Rotana’ project, in the region of EUR 4 3 0 00 000.

— order the appointment of an expert to establish the total amount of the loss suffered by the applicants;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on 3 pleas in law that are in essence identical or similar to those relied on Case T-592/14, Makhlouf v Council.
—

The applicant maintains that: (a) the Greek State, both in the cases of the abovementioned guarantees (measures 2, 4 and 6) and in the case of measure 3 (the 2009 share capital increase in ΝΕW LARKO with the payment of cash), acted ‘as a reasonable market investor’. Any reasonable, rational investor would provide a guarantee to a company in which it had its own interests (as applies to ΝΕW LARKO in this case in relation to the Greek State) for amounts which are covered by its own corresponding obligations to its own undertaking (the obligation of the Greek State to repay income tax and VAT to ΝΕW LARKO). A fortiori in this case where the Greek State expected to profit through the sale of ΝΕW LARKO. It must be emphasised that the guarantees concerned were not triggered and (b) the contested decision did not examine the size of the undertaking under consideration and whether by reason of its size and its general position in the product’s overall market sector it would be able to affect the internal market for the ‘product’. It must be noted that the size of ΝΕW LARKO is such that the State aid under consideration would not be able to have any influence on the internal market.
—

The applicant claims in that regard that, in the contested decision, no account was taken of elements which had an essential part to play in the adoption of that decision and of which the Commission had been fully informed (for example, the fact that a Trust had been established in order to ensure a complete economic break between Airport Handling and SEA Handling, a company alleged to have received State aid SA.21420).