ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/37

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2014 — Skysoft Computersysteme v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting Group and Sky IP International (SKYSOFT)

(Case T-262/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SKYSOFT - Earlier Community word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 421/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Skysoft Computersysteme GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany) (represented by: P. Ehrlinger and T. Hagen, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom); and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth) (represented by J. Barry and S. Wright, solicitors, and P. Roberts, barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2013 (Case R 2503/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Sky IP International Ltd, on one side, and Skysoft Computersysteme GmbH, on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Skysoft Computersysteme GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 1 October 2014 — Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung v OHIM — Rivella International (holzmichel)

(Case T-263/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark holzmichel - Earlier international figurative marks Michel and Michel POWER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2014/C 395/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH (Sohland an der Spree, Germany) (represented by: A. Weiß, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Rivella International AG (Rothrist, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and A. Coordes, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2013 (Case R 1968/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Rivella International AG and Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Orange v Commission

(Case T-402/13) (1)

(Competition - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Proportionality - Appropriateness - Nececssity - Absence of arbitrariness - Statement of reasons)

(2015/C 016/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Orange (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Gunther and A. Giraud)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission decisions C (2013) 4103 final and C (2013) 4194 final of 25 and 27 June 2013, relating to a procedure under Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 addressed respectively to France Telecom SA and Orange and to all companies directly or indirectly controlled by them.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Orange to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/24

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Urb Rulmenti Suceava v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB)

(Case T-506/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark URB - Earlier national collective word mark URB and earlier national collective figurative mark URB - Absolute ground for refusal - No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - No authorisation by the proprietor of the earlier marks - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 - No breach of Article 72 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2014/C 462/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA (Suceava, Romania) (represented by: I. Burdusel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Harun Adiguzel (Diosd, Hungary) (represented by: G. Bozocea, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 July 2013 (Case R 1309/2012-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA and Harun Adiguzel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA to pay the costs.

3. Declares that Harun Adiguzel is to bear his own costs.

(1) OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/48

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — van der Aat and Others v Commission

(Case T-304/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other EU staff - Weighting applicable to officials and agents employed in Varese - Articles 64 to 65a of the Staff Regulations - Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 - Duty to state reasons - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Manifest error of assessment))

(2015/C 046/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Chris van der Aat (Besozzo, Italy) and the other officials and EU staff whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Orlandi, D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and D. Martin, and subsequently by J. Curall and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 in van der Aat and Others v Commission (F-111/11, ECR — SC, EU:F:2013:42), seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Chris van der Aat and the other officials and EU staff whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment to bear their own costs and those incurred by the Commission in the present proceedings;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs in the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/35

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — DTL Corporación v OHIM — Vallejo Rosell (Generia)

(Case T-176/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Generia - Earlier Community figurative mark Generalia generación renovable - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 63(2) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 034/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: DTL Corporación (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Zuazo Araluze, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mar Vallejo Rosell (Pinto, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2013 (Case R 661/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ms Mar Vallejo Rosell and DTL Corporación, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

1. The action is dismissed.

2. DTL Corporación, SL is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/21

Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Enercon v OHIM (Shades of the colour green)

(Case T-655/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community trade mark consisting of a gradient of five shades of the colour green - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Reclassification of the mark applied for - Article 43(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 089/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm and S. Overhage, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 247/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of a gradient of five shades of the colour green as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Blue Coat Systems (BLUECO)

(Case T-685/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BLUECO - Earlier Community word mark BLUE COAT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Distinctive character of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2015/C 073/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Pechan and S. Körber, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (Sunnyvale, California, United States) (represented by: V. Dalichau, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 2028/2012-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Blue Coat Systems, Inc. and Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
1.

Annuls the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 July 2013 (Cases R 1767/2012-1 and R 1768/2012-1), in so far as they dismiss the applications of Schmidt Spiele GmbH for goods and services other than ‘computers’, ‘(programs for) computer games; programs for video games recorded on cartridges, disks, CD-ROM, cassettes, tapes and mini-disks’, ‘computer software [recorded programs]; computer programs (downloadable); computer software [recorded programs]’, in Class 9, ‘goods made from paper and cardboard (included in Class 16); matter printed in colour’, in Class 16, ‘games [including electronic games and video games] except as apparatus adapted for screens or external monitors’, ‘playing cards’, ‘parlour games; games of cards’, ‘portable apparatus for electronic games’, ‘parlour games’ and ‘video games being apparatus adapted for use with screens or external monitors’, in Class 28, and ‘entertainment’, ‘arranging and conducting of entertainment events’ and ‘services in the field of leisure activities’, in Class 41.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2015 — Husky CZ v OHIM — Husky of Tostock (HUSKY)

(Case T-287/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark HUSKY - Genuine use of the trade mark - Partial revocation - Extension of the time-limit - Rule 71(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Translation into the language of the proceedings))

(2015/C 107/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Husky CZ s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos and I. Harrington, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Husky of Tostock Ltd (Woodbridge, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2013 (Case R 748/2012-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Husky CZ s.r.o. and Husky of Tostock Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Husky CZ s.r.o. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/36

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — Steinbeck v OHIM — Alfred Sternjakob (BE HAPPY)

(Joined Cases T-707/13 and T-709/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word marks BE HAPPY - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 198/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Steinbeck GmbH (Fulda, Germany) (represented by: M. Heinrich and M. Fischer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG (Frankenthal, Germany) (represented by: S. Henn and S. Tepel, lawyers)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 October 2013 (Cases R 31/2013-1 and R 32/2013-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG and Steinbeck GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Steinbeck GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/23

Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v OHIM — Carolus C. (English pink)

(Case T-378/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark English pink - Earlier Community word mark PINK LADY and earlier Community figurative mark Pink Lady - Obligation to state reasons - Duty of diligence - Decisions by a Community trade mark court - No res judicata))

(2015/C 155/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd (Victoria, Australia) and Star Fruits Diffusion (Caderousse, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Carolus C. BVBA (Nieuwerkerken, Belgium)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2013 (Case R 1215/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion, on the one hand, and Carolus C. BVBA, on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 May 2013 (Case R 1215/2011-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and by Star Fruits Diffusion;

4. Orders Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion to bear half of their costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/9

Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Rubinum v Commission

(Case T-201/13) (1)

((Public health - Food safety - Additive for use in animal nutrition - Preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi - Commission decision to suspend the authorisations of that preparation - Risk to health - Error of Law - Precautionary principle))

(2015/C 221/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rubinum, SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: C. Bittner and P.-C. Scheel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, B. Schima and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 288/2013 of 25 March 2013 concerning the suspension of the authorisations of the preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi (NCIMB 40112/CNCM I-1012) as provided for by Regulations (EC) No 256/2002, (EC) No 1453/2004, (EC) No 255/2005, (EC) No 1200/2005, (EC) No 166/2008 and (EC) No 378/2009 (OJ 2013 L 86, p. 15).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Rubinum, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/28

Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Skype v OHIM — Sky and Sky IP International (SKYPE)

(Case T-184/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SKYPE - Earlier Community word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 205/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Skype Ultd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented: initially by I. Fowler, Solicitor, J. Schmitt, lawyer, and J. Mellor QC, and subsequently by A. Carboni and M. Browne, Solicitors)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sky plc, formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom); and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth) (represented by: R. Guthrie, D. Rose, V. Baxter, Solicitors, and T. Moody-Stuart, Barrister, subsequently by R. Guthrie, D. Rose, T. Moody-Stuart and J. Curry, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2013 (Case R 121/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Sky IP International Ltd and, on the other hand, Skype Ultd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Skype Ultd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky plc and Sky IP International Ltd.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
Case T-657/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — BH Stores v OHIM — Alex Toys (ALEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ALEX — National word and figurative marks ALEX — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — No similarity between the goods and services covered by the marks at issue — No likelihood of confusion)

Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — BH Stores v OHIM — Alex Toys (ALEX)

(Case T-657/13) ( 1 )

‛(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ALEX — National word and figurative marks ALEX — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — No similarity between the goods and services covered by the marks at issue — No likelihood of confusion)’

Parties

Applicant: BH Stores BV (Curaçao autonomous entity of the Netherlands) (represented by: T. Dolde, lawyer, and M. Hawkins, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening between the General Court: Alex Toys LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2013 (Case R 1950/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between BH Stores BV and Alex Toys LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders BH Stores BV to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Alex Toys LLC for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

( 1 ) OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/36

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2015 — AgriCapital v OHIM — agri.capital (AGRI.CAPITAL)

(Case T-514/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark AGRI.CAPITAL - Earlier Community word marks AgriCapital and AGRICAPITAL - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 236/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AgriCapital Corp. (New York, United States) (represented by: P. Meyer and M. Gramsch, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: agri.capital GmbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann-Schiffel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2013 (Case R 2236/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between AgriCapital Corp. and agri.capital GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders AgriCapital Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/20

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Philips v Commission

(Case T-92/13) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability to a parent company of an infringement committed by a joint venture - Equal treatment - Method of calculating the fine - Taking into account the value of sales of cathode ray tubes through transformed products - Taking into account the average value of sales recorded during the infringement - Taking into account the overall turnover of the group - Proportionality - Duration of the administrative procedure))

(2015/C 346/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: J. de Pree and S. Molin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Hödlmayr, M. Kellerbauer and P. Van Nuffel, subsequently by M. Kellerbauer, P. Van Nuffel and A. Biolan, and lastly by M. Kellerbauer, P. Van Nuffel and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes) and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fines imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.