ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red)

(Case T-50/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2012/C 331/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by B. Schmidt then D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 November 2010 (Case R 1316/2010-4) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders V. Fraas GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/18

Judgment of the General Court of 11 January 2013 — Kokomarina v OHIM — Euro Shoe Group (interdit de me gronder IDMG)

(Case T-568/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark interdit de me gronder IDMG - Earlier Benelux word mark DMG - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark disputed for the first time before the General Court)

2013/C 46/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kokomarina (Concarneau, France) (represented by: C. Charrière-Bournazel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Euro Shoe Group (Beringen, Belgium) (represented by: I. Vernimme, lawyer

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 July 2011 (Case R 1814/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Euro Shoe Unie and Kokomarina

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kokomarina to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/43

Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2012 — Qualitest v Council

(Case T-421/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)

2013/C 26/82

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Qualitest FZE (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: L. Catrain González, lawyer, E. Wright and H. Zhu, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Marhic and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and T. Scharf, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls, in so far as they concern Qualitest FZE: — Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran; — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran; — Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

2. Maintains the effects of Decision 2011/299 as regards Qualitest until the annulment of Implementing Regulation No 503/2011 and Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Qualitest;

4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/23

Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2013 — Laboratoire Bioderma v OHIM — Cabinet Continental (BIODERMA)

(Case T-427/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark BIODERMA - No infringement of the rights of the defence - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2013/C 108/62

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire Bioderma (Lyon, France) (represented by: A. Teston, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Cabinet Continental (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-C. Brun, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2011 (Case R 861/2009-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cabinet Continental and Laboratoire Bioderma

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 February 2011 (Case R 861/2009-1) in so far as concerns dietetic substances adapted for medical use, in Class 5;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Laboratoire Bioderma to bear its own costs and half of those incurred by OHIM and Cabinet Continental;

4. Orders OHIM and Cabinet Continental to bear half of their own costs.

(1) OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 71/16

Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Germans Boada v OHIM (Manual tile-cutting machine)

(Case T-25/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community three-dimensional mark - Manual tile-cutting machine - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Equal treatment)

2013/C 71/24

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Germans Boada, SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2010 (Case R 771/2010-1), relating to an application for registration of the three-dimensional sign representing a manual tile-cutting machine as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Germans Boada, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/33

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Schönberger v Parliament

(Case T-186/11) (1)

(Action for annulment - Right to petition - Petition addressed to the European Parliament - Petition declared admissible - Decision concluding the petition procedure - Measure not subject to review - Inadmissibility)

2013/C 114/52

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Waldherr and U. Rösslein, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions of 25 January 2011 which concluded the examination of the petition submitted by the applicant on 2 October 2010 (petition No 1188/2010), which had been declared admissible.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Mr Peter Schönberger to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/17

Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Andersen v Commission

(Case T-92/11) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by the Danish authorities to the public undertaking DSB - Public service contracts for the supply of passenger rail transport services between Copenhagen and Ystad - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market subject to conditions - Temporal application of rules of substantive law)

2013/C 129/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jørgen Andersen (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Nissen, G. van de Walle de Ghelcke and J. Rivas Andrés, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, acting as Agent, assisted by K. Lundgaard Hansen and R. Holdgaard, lawyers); and by Danske Statsbaner (DSB) (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (Case C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08)) (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the second paragraph of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (Case C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08));

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Jørgen Andersen, with the exception of those arising from the interventions;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Andersen arising from its intervention;

4. Orders Danske Statsbaner (DSB) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Andersen arising from its intervention.

(1) OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/8

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2013 — Sanco v OHIM — Marsalman (Representation of a chicken)

(Case T-249/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark representing a chicken - Earlier national figurative mark representing a chicken - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity between goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 178/14

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sanco, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Segura Roda, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Marsalman, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2011 (Case R 1073/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Sanco, SA and Marsalman, SL

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 February 2011 (Case R 1073/2010-2);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/41

Judgment of the General Court of 18 April 2013 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

(Case T-506/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial name Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 156/75

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: initially S. Abrar, then P. Lange, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, V. von Bomhard, T. Heitmann, M. Petersenn, lawyers, and I. Fowler, solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2011 (Case R 262/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg and Peek & Cloppenburg KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/71

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2013 — Aldi v OHIM — Dialcos (dialdi)

(Case T-505/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative trade mark dialdi - Earlier Community word mark ALDI - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/157

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dialcos SpA (Due Carrare, Italy) (represented by: B. Saguatti, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2011 (Case R 1097/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Aldi GmbH & Co. KG and Dialcos SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 July 2011 (Case R 1097/2010-2).

2. Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and also those incurred by Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.

3. Orders Dialcos SpA to pay its own costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/66

Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Omnis Group v Commission

(Case T-74/11) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market for the provision of Enterprise Resource Planning software (ERP) and Enterprise Application Software (EAS) - Decision rejecting a complaint - No European Union interest)

2013/C 225/147

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Omnis Group Srl (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: D.-A.-F. Tarara, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, A. Biolan and J. Bourke, subsequently by A. Biolan and C. Hödlmayr, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Microsoft Corp. (Redmond, Washington, United States) (represented by: A.-M. Baciu and G. Harapcea, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 8529 of 1 December 2010 rejecting the complaint (Case COMP/39.784 — Omnis/Microsoft) concerning alleged infringements of Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU by Microsoft Corp. on the market for Enterprise Application Software, referred to as ‘Enterprise Application Software/Enterprise Resource Planning’ systems.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Omnis Group Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 304/15

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11) (1)

(Competition - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Inspection powers of the Commission - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Duty to state reasons)

2013/C 304/25

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Deutsche Bahn AG (Berlin, Germany); DB Mobility Logistics AG (Berlin); DB Energie GmbH (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany); DB Netz AG (Frankfurt-am-Main); DB Schenker Rail GmbH (Mainz, Germany); DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG (Mainz); Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße mbH (DUSS) (Bodenheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Deselaers, O. Mross and J. Brückner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, N. von Lingen and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially, in Cases T-289/11 and T-290/11, by: M. Muñoz Pérez, then, in Cases T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11, by: S. Centeno Huerta, abogados del Estado); Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents); and EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: X.A. Lewis, M. Schneider and M. Moustakali, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decisions C(2011)1774 of 14 March 2011, C(2011) 2365 of 30 March 2011 and C(2011) 5230 of 14 July 2011 ordering Deutsche Bahn AG and all its subsidiaries, to submit to inspections under Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (Cases COMP/39.678 and COMP/39.731).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, DB Schenker Rail GmbH,; DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG and Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße mbH (DUSS) to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and to bear their own costs;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union, the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/67

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission

(Case T-93/11) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning the negotiations between the European Union and the Republic of India for the purposes of concluding a free trade agreement - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of international relations - Documents which have entered the public domain - Non-imposition of a restriction on disclosure of documents)

2013/C 225/148

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor, and S. Santoro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and C. ten Dam, and subsequently F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and I. Zervas, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller, K. Petersen and A. Wiedmann, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 6 December 2010 refusing the applicant full access to several documents relating to the negotiations between the European Union and the Republic of India aimed at concluding a free trade agreement, pursuant to the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of 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).

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.
1.

Annuls the Commission’s decision of 10 August 2011 refusing access to volume 4 of the Draft Assessment Report issued by the Federal Republic of Germany as rapporteur Member State for the active substance glyphosate under Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market inasmuch as it refuses access to the parts of that volume containing information relating to emissions into the environment: the ‘identity’ and quantity of all of the impurities in the active substance notified by each operator, set out in part C.1.2.1 of the first sub-document (pp. 11 to 61), in part C.1.2.1 of the second sub-document (pp. 1 to 6) and in part C.1.2.1 of the third sub-document (pp. 4 and 8 to 13); the impurities present in the various batches and the minimum, median and maximum quantities of each of those impurities, set out, for each operator, in the table included in part C.1.2.2 of the first sub-document (pp. 61 to 84) and in part C.1.2.4 of the third sub-document (p. 7); and the composition of the plant protection products developed by the operators, set out in part C.1.3, entitled ‘Detailed specification of the preparations’, of the first sub-document (pp. 84 to 88) of that volume;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/23

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-383/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Restrictions on entry into, or transit through, the territory of the European Union - Rights of defence - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Fundamental rights)

2013/C 313/44

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eyad Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented: initially by P. Grollet and G. Karouni, and subsequently by G. Karouni and C. Rygaert, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 91), of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), and of Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Eyad Makhlouf to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.