ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/29

Action brought on 15 May 2014 — Klyuyev v Council

(Case T-341/14)

2014/C 261/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sergiy Klyuyev (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: R. Gherson, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant: — Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine; and — Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine.

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law of which six are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-340/14, Klyuyev v Council.

Furthermore, the applicant relies on a plea in law alleging that the Council failed to fulfil the criterion for including the applicant on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to the restrictive measures, namely that the person has been identified as responsible for the misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds or human rights violations in Ukraine, as the only reason given for the listing of the applicant is that he is said to be subject to investigation in Ukraine for involvement in crimes in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision’s application of point 18 of the Fining Guidelines violates the Fining Guidelines and infringes the principles of proportionality, equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations because: — it fails to comply with the Commission’s Fining Guidelines without objective justification, by treating UG and SM power cables separately for the purpose of allocating sales in the EEA to the applicant and by failing to adequately reflect the relative weight of the applicant in the infringement; — it produces a discriminatory advantage on producers (including the applicant) that only produced UG power cables; and — it leads to a disproportionately large allocation of sales in the EEA to the applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/30

Action brought on 20 May 2014 — Construlink/OHIM — Wit-Software (GATEWIT)

(Case T-351/14)

2014/C 261/54

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Construlink — Tecnologias de Informação, SA (Lisboa, Portugal) (represented by: M. Lopes Rocha, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA (Coimbra, Portugal)

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 6 March 2014 in Case R 1059/2013-1;

— Consider the trade mark application No 10 128 262 GATEWIT fully sustained;

— Order the OHMI and the Opponent to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘GATEWIT’ for services in Class 42 — Community trade mark applicationNo 10 128 262

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘wit software’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 as well as the national registration of the company name ‘Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA’

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was annulled and the trade mark applied for rejected

Pleas in law:

— Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/38

Action brought on 17 April 2014 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face)

(Case T-243/14)

2014/C 282/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Freitag, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 January 2014 given in Case R 837/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Tri-dimensional mark representing the shape of a face for goods in classes 29 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 68 861

Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/43

Action brought on 18 June 2014 — AETMD v Council

(Case T-460/14)

2014/C 303/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 307/2014 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 875/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand following an interim review pursuant of Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009;

— order the Council to correct Implementing Regulation (EU) No 875/2013 in view of the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 307/2004;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the institutions committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed Article 2(3) and (4) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009 (1) by failing to properly assess whether River Kwai International Food Industry’s domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade and whether the domestic sales should therefore serve as a basis to calculate River Kwai International Food Industry’s normal value.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the institutions infringed Article 2(10) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009 by failing to make a fair comparison between River Kwai International Food Industry’s export price and normal value.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the institutions infringed Article 11(3) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009 by failing to properly assess the alleged change in River Kwai International Food Industry’s dumping margin and by failing to properly assess the lasting nature of any such alleged change.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the institutions infringed Article 19(2) and Article 20(2) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009 by failing to provide the applicant with a meaningful summary of the evidence on which they intended to amend River Kwai International Food Industry’s dumping margin and by failing to provide the applicant with the considerations on the basis of which they intended to amend River Kwai International Food Industry’s anti-dumping duty.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/46

Action brought on 6 June 2014 — Junited Autoglas Deutschland v OHIM — United Vehicles (UNITED VEHICLEs)

(Case T-404/14)

2014/C 292/57

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: United Vehicles GmbH (Munich, Germany)

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 7 April 2014 in Case R 859/2013-4;

— Uphold the appeal;

— Uphold the opposition based on earlier Community trade mark No 6 0 25 399;

— And dismiss the application for registration of the word mark ‘UNITED VEHICLES’;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: United Vehicles GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘UNITED VEHICLEs’ for services in Classes 35, 36, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 3 30 041

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘Junited’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37 and 39 to 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality by insufficiently taking into account the limited weight of the Japanese undertakings in the cartel when setting the basic amount of the fine. The applicant submits that since it faced significant technical and commercial entry barriers in Europe, its commitment not to compete in the European Economic Area (EEA) was immaterial for the effectiveness of the European suppliers’ customer allocation arrangements within the EEA. The Commission should therefore have differentiated more significantly the gravity factors used for the fines imposed upon the applicant (or other Asian suppliers) and upon European suppliers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/44

Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Österreichische Post v Commission

(Case T-463/14)

2014/C 303/52

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Österreichische Post AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Schatzmann, J. Bleckmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s implementing decision in Case C(2014) 2093 in so far as Directive 2004/17/EC continues to apply to the award of contracts for postal services which are not mentioned in Article 1 of the implementing decision, exemption from which the applicant has requested under Article 30(6) of Directive 2004/17/EC;

— in the alternative, in so far as partial annulment of the contested decision is, according to the Court, not admissible or possible, to annul the implementing decision in its entirety;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that the contested decision, as regards the postal services not covered by Article 1 thereof, is unlawful under Article 263(2) TFEU because the Commission has infringed EU law by misapplying and misinterpreting Directive 2004/17/EC. The applicant claims, in essence, that the postal services which it provides are exposed to sufficient direct competition, so that the conditions for an exemption under Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17 are met. The applicant also claims that the Commission misapplied the criteria and methods on market definition laid down by EU law and case-law.

Furthermore, the applicant alleges infringement of essential procedural requirements, as the Commission failed to give sufficient reasons for its decision.

Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed general fundamental procedural rights, in that by failing to adequately address the applicant’s claims and evidence, it infringed the applicant’s right to be heard.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 329/19

Action brought on 30 June 2014 — Mayer v EFSA

(Case T-493/14)

2014/C 329/27

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ingrid Alice Mayer (Ellwangen, Germany) (represented by: T. Mayer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— extend her secondment up to 30 June 2015;

— declare unlawful the termination of her secondment agreement, more precisely the EFSA decision ‘Termination of the secondment’ of 16 April 2014;

— order the defendant not to allow the ‘observer’ position of the seconded national expert on the staff committee to be re-selected;

— declare unlawful the six-month suspension of her staff-committee activity;

— order that she be granted access to all e-mails which were exchanged between the EFSA director and a private-law organisation active in the food sector;

— in the alternative, order that that access to documents be granted to a third party, to be determined by the General Court, in order to examine a possible conflict of interests;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following submissions in support of her action.

The applicant submits that she has a legal entitlement to an extension of her secondment as national expert as a result of the general principle of equality, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the prohibition of arbitrary action and Article 2 TEU.

The applicant complains in this regard that the non-extension of the secondment is based on an erroneous selection decision, or even on no selection decision at all.

The applicant also claims that her suspension from the staff committee is unlawful because no reasons were given, no hearing took place and no written decision was issued.

In addition, the applicant asserts a claim to have access to certain e-mails under Article 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). In this connection, she argues that official e-mails do not fall under the protection of personal data.

(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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/64

Action brought on 3 June 2014 — Établissement Amra/OHIM

(KJ KANGOO JUMPS XR)

(Case T-390/14)

2014/C 315/108

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Établissement Amra (Vaduz, Liechtenstein) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 March 2014 in Case R 1511/2013-2 in its entirety;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The position mark, consisting of the lower spring portion of a sporting and exercising device and containing the word elements ‘KJ KANGOO JUMPS XR’ for goods in Class 28 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 26 494

Decision of the Examiner: The application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/17

Action brought on 24 July 2014 — Research Engineering & Manufacturing v OHIM — Nedschroef Holding (TRILOBULAR)

(Case T-558/14)

2014/C 351/21

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Research Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. (Middletown, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and M. Gilbert, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nedschroef Holding BV (Helmond, Netherlands)

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 12 May 2014 given in Case R 442/2013-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community trade mark registration No 668 566

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) CTMR in conjuction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c)

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the Community trade mark invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 339/23

Action brought on 18 July 2014 — GEA Group v OHIM (engineering for a better world)

(Case T-545/14)

2014/C 339/28

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by J. Schneiders, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 June 2014 in Case R 303/2014-4;

— 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: the word mark ‘engineering for a better world’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 35, 37, 39, 41 and 42 — application for registration of a Community trade mark No 1 2 0 34 807

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/11

Action brought on 30 July 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION)

(Case T-568/14)

2014/C 361/15

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 27 May 2014 in case R 120/2014-4;

— 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 FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 22 631

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;
—

Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2014 in Case F-88/13 Ms Desislava Kolarova v Research Executive Agency, seeking the annulment of the decision of PMO.1, served on 28 November 2012, by which the appellants application of 20 July 2012 concerning the treatment of her mother, Ms Anna Borisova Petrova, as a person to be treated as a dependent child under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations for the period from 1 November 2012 to 31 October 2013;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/24

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION)

(Case T-609/14)

2014/C 361/36

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 123/2014-4;

— 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 ‘ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 22 986

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 361/23

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION)

(Case T-608/14)

2014/C 361/35

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 121/2014-4;

— 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 ‘ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 22 697

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;