ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Commission v SEMEA

(Case T-168/10)

(2010/C 161/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova, Agent and E. Bouttier, lawyer)

Defendant: Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) (Millau, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the société d’économie mixte de l’Aveyron, in the person of its ad hoc agent, to pay the applicant the principal sum of EUR 41,012, plus interest outstanding since 10 March 1992 or, in the alternative, from 27 April 1993;

— order the capitalisation of interest;

— order the SEMEA to pay EUR 5 000 in respect of wrongful obstruction of legal process;

— order the SEMEA to pay the costs of this case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Community, represented by the Commission, concluded on 6 July 1990 with the Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (the Aveyron semi-public installations company) (SEMEA) a grant contract concerning a local development action consisting in the performance of work for the preparation and launching of a Centre Européen d’Entreprise Locale (European Local Enterprise Centre) in Millau.

The Commission claims that under that contract, the SEMEA undertook to perform various services and to account for them to the Commission by submitting periodical reports, the Commission for its part undertaking to contribute financially to the performance of those works up to a maximum of ECU 135,000, not exceeding 50 % of the justified costs of the works.

In May 1991, the SEMEA requested from the Commission that that contract might be performed by another structure, the Association CEI12, which the Commission accepted, specifying that that agreement did not exempt the SEMEA from its obligations, and the SEMEA thus confirmed that it would guarantee the proper performance of the services provided for in the contract.

Following a check on the state of progress of the works, it was found that the total eligible expenditure was ECU 187,977 and thus, that the Commission’s contribution was to be set at 50 % of that amount, that is, at ECU 93,988.

In so far as the SEMEA has already received ECU 135,000 in respect of the contract, this action seeks to claim from the SEMEA the recovery of the overpayment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/48

Action brought on 12 April 2010 — Grupo Osborne v OHIM — Confecciones Sanfertús (TORO)

(Case T-165/10)

2010/C 148/78

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Osborne (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Confecciones Sanfertús, SL (Graus, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Case R 0638/2009-2;

— Uphold the registration of the Community trade mark No 2 844 264 in Class 25, and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Grupo Osborne.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘TORO’ (registration application No 2 844 264) for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 39.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Confecciones Sanfertús, S.L.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘LETORO’ (No 465 635) for goods in Classes 24 and 25 and Spanish figurative marks containing the word ‘TORO’ (No 802 043 and No 1 513 622) for goods in Class 25.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark; the fact that there is a previous ruling by the Opposition Division which decides on the compatibility of the marks ‘TORO’ and ‘LETORO’; and the fact that the evidence of use presented does not prove the use of the Spanish marks ‘LETORO’ (word) and ‘TORO’ (figurative).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/47

Action brought on 27 April 2010 — BVR v OHIM — Austria Leasing (Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H. Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppen Österreich)

(Case T-197/10)

2010/C 179/82

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Bundesverband der Deutschen Volksbanken und Raiffeisenbanken eV (BVR) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Rinke, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Austria Leasing GmbH (Frankfurt, 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 3 February 2010 (Case R 248/2009-1);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Austria Leasing GmbH.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H. Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppen Österreich’, in respect of services in Classes 35, 36 and 37.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BVR.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: inter alia, a figurative mark registered in Germany which contains the word element ‘Raiffeisen’, in respect of services in Classes 36, 39 and 42.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/41

Action brought on 19 April 2010 — Apotheke DocMorris v OHIM (Representation of a green cross)

(Case T-173/10)

2010/C 179/72

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Apotheke DocMorris Holding GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by Y. Dick, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 February 2010 in Case R 1606/2008-4; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, representing a green cross, for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 21, 25, 29, 30, 32, 35 to 42 and 44 (Application No 5 930 946).

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) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as the Board of Appeal’s finding of distinctiveness was in several respects incorrect.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/30

Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Nike International Ltd v OHIM — Intermar Simanto Nahmias (JUMPMAN)

(Case T-233/10)

2010/C 195/47

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, USA) (represented by: M. De Justo Bailey, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intermar Simanto Nahmias (Individual Company) (Istanbul, Turkey)

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 11 March 2010 in case R 738/2009-1, as far as the opposition decision No B 1326299 has been upheld for all the contested goods;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings; and

— Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, should it become an intervening party in this case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘JUMPMAN’, for goods in class 25

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: Spanish trade mark registration No 2657489 of the word mark ‘JUMP’, for goods in class 25; Community trade mark registration No 2752145 of the word mark ‘JUMP’, for goods in class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all of the contested goods and rejected the application in its entirety

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 wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the concerned trade marks.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/48

Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (IMPLANTCONTROL)

(Case T-284/10)

()

2010/C 234/86

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Milux Holding S.A. (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 June 2010 in case R 1438/2009-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IMPLANTCONTROL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the principle of non-discrimination to the facts of this case; in the alternative, infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/51

Action brought on 7 June 2010 — Microban International and Microban (Europe) v Commission

(Case T-262/10)

()

2010/C 221/82

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Microban International Ltd. (Huntersville, United States) and Microban (Europe) Ltd. (Heath Hayes, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. S. Rydelski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision No 2010/169 of 19 March 2010 concerning the non-inclusion of 2,4,4-’trichloro-2’-hydroxydiphenyl ether in the Union list of additives which may be used in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs under Directive 2002/72/EC (OJ 2010 L 75, p. 25); and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Commission Decision No 2010/169 of 19 March 2010 concerning the non-inclusion of 2,4,4-’trichloro-2’-hydroxydiphenyl ether in the Union list of additives which may be used in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs under Directive 2002/72/EC (1) (OJ 2010 L 75, p. 25), notified under document C(2010) 1613.

In support of its submissions, the applicants put forward the following pleas in law:

Firstly, that the contested Decision is not in accordance with the authorisation procedure under the framework Regulation (2) as it lacks an adequate legal basis for its adoption.

Secondly, the Decision adopted by the defendant not to include the product concerned in the Union list of additives without a risk management decision, solely based on the withdrawal of the original application for authorisation, is in breach of the authorisation procedure for the product concerned.

Thirdly, the defendant violated the applicants’ legitimate expectations by not providing for the opportunity to replace the original applicant for the product concerned.

Finally, the procedure leading up to the contested Decision was not in compliance with general principles of EU law, such as the principles of sound administration, transparency and legal certainty.

(1) Commission Directive 2002/72/EC of 6 August 2002 relating to plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs (OJ 2002 L 220, p. 18)

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC (OJ 2004 L 338, p. 4).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/20

Action brought on 14 July 2010 — dm drogeriemarkt GmbH & Co. KG v OHIM — S.E.M.T.E.E. (caldea)

(Case T-304/10)

()

2010/C 260/27

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: dm drogeriemarkt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and P. Hiller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: S.E.M.T.E.E. (Escaldes Engornay, Andorra)

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 29 April 2010 in case R 899/2009-1 and, by the way of correction, delete the applicant’s trademark;

— Alternatively, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2010 in case R 899/2009-1 and remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

— Alternatively, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2010 in case R 899/2009-1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in orange, blue and white ‘caldea’, for goods and services in classes 3, 35, 37, 42, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 5691845

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

Mark or sign cited: International trade mark registration No 894004 of the word mark ‘BALEA’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 8

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected 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 wrongly assessed that there was not a likelihood of confusion between the concerned trade marks.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/42

Action brought on 16 June 2010 — Land Wien v Commission

(Case T-267/10)

()

2010/C 234/76

Language of the case: Geman

Parties

Applicant: Land Wien (represented by: W.-G. Schärf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— declare the decision of 25 March 2010 to be void;

— hold that the European Commission has breached Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) as not all of the requested documents relating to the extension of blocks 3 and 4 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant were forwarded to the complainant party, with the result that the Commission failed to act within the terms of Article 265 TFEU and […] is in breach of [Article 2](3) of Regulation No 1049/2001;

— order the Commission to pay all costs relating to the proceedings incurred by the applicant, Land Wien.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging the Commission decision of 25 March 2010, by which the complaint procedure in respect of the applicant’s complaint concerning the completion of blocks 3 and 4 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant in Slovakia was discontinued. The applicant further complains that it did not receive from the Commission all of the requested documents concerning the extension of blocks 3 and 4 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant and that there was therefore a failure to act, within the terms of Article 265 TFEU, on the part of the Commission.

As grounds for its action, the applicant submits that, by its decision of 25 March 2010, the Commission has failed to have regard for Directive 2003/35/EC (2) and for the fundamental right under Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

In conjunction with its application for the provision of information, the applicant contends that the improper treatment accorded to it breaches Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 7 of Regulation No 1049/2001, it submits, has also been breached.

The applicant further takes the view that, by failing to act in respect of the complaint and the request for information, the Commission has also failed to comply with the obligations to act which are laid down in the EAEC Treaty and discussed in detail in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 October 2009 in Case C-115/08 ČEZ (not yet published in the ECR).

(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) Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending, with regard to public participation and access to justice, Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17).
Action brought on 31 August 2010 — Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission

(Case T-353/10)

()

(2010/C 288/102)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro A.E. (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— uphold the present action;

— annul the contested debit note;

— take account of the applicant’s submissions if it holds that the amounts as accepted by the applicant in its memorandum of 5 November 2009 are to be refunded;

— annul the contested measure also in so far as it relates to third instalment which has not been paid;

— set any amounts that are to be refunded against the amounts never paid by way of the third instalment, which has remained outstanding for five years;

— hold that the present action constitutes an event interrupting the limitation period for the claim for payment of the third instalment;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision which is contained in debit note No 3241007362 of 22 July 2010 and relates to the applicant’s participation in DICOEMS research programme No 507760 and to implementation of the results of financial audit No 09-BA74-028.

The applicant puts forward the following grounds in support of its pleas:

— infringement of the general principle of law that an unfavourable measure must incorporate a statement of reasons in order for the legality of the reasoning to be reviewed, since the contested debit note does not state any reasons;

— error in the assessment of the facts, since the defendant did not take account of the evidence and in particular the timesheets which the applicant submitted as an attachment to its memorandum of 5 November 2009;

— error of law and defective reasoning, since the defendant did not take account of the applicant’s actual submissions and rejected them in a wrongful manner and without stating reasons;
Action brought on 18 August 2010 — Etimine and Etiproducts v ECHA

(Case T-343/10)

()

(2010/C 288/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Etimine SA (Bettembourg, Luxembourg) and Ab Etiproducts Oy (Espoo, Finland), (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

— Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— Annul the contested act as it relates to Boric Acid and Disodium Tetraborates;

— Declare the illegality of Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 (1) of 10 August 2009 insofar as it relates to Boric Acid and Disodium Tetraborates; and

— Order ECHA to pay all the costs and the expenses of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the decision of European Chemicals Agency to include Boric Acid and Disodium Tetraborates in the candidate list of substances established under Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (2). In addition, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, a declaration as to the illegality of Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 of 10 August 2009 insofar as it relates to Boric Acid and Disodium Tetraborates.

In support of their application, the applicants put forward the following pleas in law:

Firstly, the contested act was adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements and as an error of law because it failed to fulfil the requirements of Article 59 and Annex XV of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.

Secondly, the contested act is based on a manifest error of assessment and is in breach of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 because ECHA failed to produce evidence and demonstrate that the Borate Substances ‘meet the criteria’ for classification as toxic to reproduction category 2 under Directive 67/548 (3).

In addition, by adopting the contested act, ECHA infringed the EU law principle of proportionality.

Finally, the contested act is based on Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 which is in itself unlawful.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 of 10 August 2009 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2009 L 235, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).

(3) Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 1967 196, p. 1)