ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/50

Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face in the form of a star)

(Case T-244/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a face in the form of a star - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 398/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Freitag and C. Albrecht, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2014 (Case R 838/2013-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a face in the form of a star.

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 16 January 2014 (Case R 838/2013-1) with regard to the refusal to register the mark applied for in respect of ‘preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; milk products’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 429/22

Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Roca Sanitario v OHIM — Villeroy & Boch (Single control handle faucet)

(Case T-334/14) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a single control handle faucet - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - No scope for innovation - Different Overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2015/C 429/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Roca Sanitario, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, 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: Villeroy & Boch AG (Mettlach, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2014 (Case R 812/2012-3), concerning invalidity proceedings between Villeroy & Boch AG and Roca Sanitario, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Roca Sanitario, SA, to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/31

Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (ELITEDISPLAY)

(Case T-563/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ELITEDISPLAY - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 406/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1539/2013-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ELITEDISPLAY as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hewlett Packard Development Company LP to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 351, 5.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/37

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Soprema v OHIM — Sopro Bauchemie (SOPRAPUR)

(Case T-763/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark SOPRAPUR - Prior Community word mark Sopro - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the goods and the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Holding Soprema (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: M.-R. Hirsch, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: E. Scheffer and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Sopro Bauchemie GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2014 (Case R 1370/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Sopro Bauchemie GmbH and Holding Soprema.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Holding Sopremo to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/33

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Sephora v OHIM — Mayfield Trading (Representation of two undulating vertical lines)

(Case T-320/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark representing two undulating vertical lines - National and international figurative marks representing an undulating vertical line - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sephora (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: H. Delabarre, 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, intervening before the General Court: Mayfield Trading Ltd (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2014 (Case R 1577/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sephora and Mayfield Trading Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sephora to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/48

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — LTJ Diffusion v OHIM — Arthur et Aston (ARTHUR & ASTON)

(Case T-83/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for word mark ARTHUR & ASTON - Earlier national figurative mark Arthur - No genuine use of the trade mark - Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character))

(2016/C 038/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: LTJ Diffusion (Colombes, France) (represented initially by S. Lederman, and subsequently by F. Fajgenbaum, lawyers)

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: Arthur et Aston SAS (Giberville, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2013 (Case R 1963/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between LTJ Diffusion and Arthur et Aston SAS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders LTJ Diffusion to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/47

Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Junited Autoglas Deutschland v OHIM — United Vehicles (UNITED VEHICLEs)

(Case T-404/14) (1)

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

(2016/C 027/58)

Language of the case: 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) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 April 2014 (Case R 859/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and United Vehicles GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
1.

Annuls Commission implementing decision 2014/459/EU of 9 July 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the ‘Guarantee’ Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), insofar as it excludes from European Union financing, so far as concerns the Republic of Slovenia, the sum of EUR 85 780,08 for the financial year 2010, of EUR 115 956,46 for the financial year 2011 and of EUR 131 269,23 for the financial year 2012;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/17

Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — The Cookware Company v OHIM — Fissler (VITA+VERDE)

(Case T-535/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark VITA+VERDE - Earlier word mark VITAVIT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 078/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Cookware Company Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, 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: Fissler GmbH (Idar-Oberstein, Germany) (represented by: A. Späth and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2014 (Case R 1082/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Fissler GmbH and The Cookware Company Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders The Cookware Company Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/24

Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Bodson and Others v EIB

(Case T-240/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Contractual nature of the employment relationship - Reform of the remuneration scheme and salary progression at the EIB - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion - Errors of law))

(2016/C 118/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Dalila Bundy (Cosnes-et-Romain, France), Didier Dulieu (Roussy-le-Village, France), Marie-Christel Heger (Nospelt, Luxembourg), Evangelos Kourgias (Senningerberg, Luxembourg), Manuel Sutil (Luxembourg), Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) and Henry von Blumenthal (Bergem, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (represented by: C. Gómez de la Cruz, T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2014 in Bodson and Others v EIB (F-73/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:16) seeking annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Mr Bodson and the other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/31

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2016 — Kicktipp v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (kicktipp)

(Case T-135/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark kicktipp - Earlier national word mark KICKERS - Rule 19 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 98(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 106/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kicktipp GmbH (Dusseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Società Italiana Calzature Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Cantaluppi, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2013 (Case R 1061/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Società Italiana Calzature Srl and Kicktipp GmbH.

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 12 December 2013 (Case R 1061/2012-2);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Kicktipp GmbH;

3. Orders Società Italiana Calzature Srl to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/38

Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Zoofachhandel Züpke and Others v Commission

(Case T-817/14) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Health policy - Combating avian influenza - Prohibition of the importation of captured wild birds into the EU - Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 - Sufficiently serious breach of rules of law conferring rights on individuals - Manifest and serious disregard for the limits of discretion - Proportionality - Duty of care - Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights))

(2016/C 156/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Zoofachhandel Züpke GmbH (Wesel, Germany), Zoohaus Bürstadt, Helmut Ofenloch GmbH & Co. KG (Bürstadt, Germany), Zoofachgeschäft — Vogelgroßhandel Import-Export Heinz Marche (Heinsberg, Germany), Rita Bürgel (Uthleben, Germany), and Norbert Kass (Altenbeken, Germany) (represented by: C. Correll, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and H. Kranenborg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants, from 1 January 2010, by reason of the adoption of the prohibition of the importation of captured wild birds into the European Union contained, first, in Commission Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 of 23 March 2007 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Community and the quarantine conditions thereof (OJ 2007 L 84, p. 7) and, subsequently, in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 of 7 January 2013 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union and the quarantine conditions thereof (OJ 2013 L 47, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Zoofachhandel Züpke GmbH, Zoohaus Bürstadt, Helmut Ofenloch GmbH & Co. KG, Zoofachgeschäft — Vogelgroßhandel Import-Export Heinz Marche, Ms Rita Bürgel and Mr Norbert Kass to pay their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/29

Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2016 — Simet v Commission

(Case T-15/14) (1)

((State Aid - retroactive public service compensation granted by the Italian authorities - Interregional coach transport services provided between 1987 and 2003 - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Maintenance of a public service obligation - Grant of compensation - Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69))

(2016/C 136/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Simet SpA (Rossano Calabro, Italy) (represented by: A. Clarizia, C. Varrone and P. Clarizia, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, D. Grespan and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul Commission Decision 2014/201/EU of 2 October 2013 on compensation to be paid to SIMET SpA for public transport services provided between 1987 and 2003 (state aid measure SA.33037 (2012/C) — Italy) (OJ 2014 L 114, p. 67).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Simet SpA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/9

Judgment of the General Court 12 May 2016 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-384/14) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Cattle and sheep sectors - Flat-rate financial correction - One-off correction - Articles 48 and 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Special entitlements - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 232/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and B. Tidore, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/191/EU of 4 April 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2014 L 104, p. 43), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Zehnder Group International v EUIPO — Stiebel Eltron (comfotherm)

(Case T-267/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark comfotherm - Earlier national word mark KOMFOTHERM - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Relevant public - Interdependence of factors))

(2016/C 211/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Zehnder Group International AG (Gränichen, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: initially A. Pohlmann and subsequently S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Stiebel Eltron GmbH & Co. KG (Holzminden, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, H. Förster and Y. Holderied, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 February 2014 (Case R 1318/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Stiebel Eltron GmbH & Co. KG and Zehnder Group International AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Zehnder Group International AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/39

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2016 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-122/14) (1)

((Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations - Periodic penalty payment - Judgment quantifying the amount of the periodic penalty payment - Method of calculating the interest applicable to the recovery of unlawful aid - Compound interest))

(2016/C 270/43)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 8681 final of 6 December 2013, by which, in order to comply with the judgment of 17 November 2011 in Commission v Italy (C-496/09, EU:C:2011:740), the Commission fixed the amount of the periodic penalty owed by the Italian Republic for the six months from 17 May to 17 November 2012.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2013) 8681 final of 6 December 2013;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/10

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Holistic Innovation Institute v Commission

(Case T-468/14) (1)

((Financial support - Research - Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development 2007-2013 - eDIGIREGION project - Commission decision refusing participation of an undertaking - Action for annulment - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Inadmissibility - Non-contractual liability - Non-material damage - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))

(2016/C 232/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented initially by R. Muñiz García, and subsequently by J. Marín López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent, and J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer)

Re:

Action, first, for annulment of Commission Decision ARES (2014) 710158 of 13 March 2014 rejecting the applicant’s participation in the eDIGIREGION project under Article 263 TFEU, and, second, an action for damages, under Article 268 TFEU, for harm that the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision of EUR 3 055 000 plus interest accrued and, in the alternative, the appointment of an expert to evaluate the harm suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Holistic Innovation Institute SLU to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/28

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Crosfield Italia v ECHA

(Case T-587/14) (1)

((REACH - Fee for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to micro-, small-and medium-sized enterprises - Error in declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 392/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Crosfield Italia Srl (Verona, Italy) (represented by: M. Baldassarri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented initially by M. Heikkilä, E. Bigi, J.-P. Trnka and E. Maurage, and subsequently by M. Heikkilä, J.-P. Trnka and E. Maurage, Agents, and by C. Garcia Molyneux, lawyer)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Decision SME(2013) 4672 of the ECHA of 28 May 2014, which states that the applicant does not fulfil the conditions to receive a reduction of the fee for small enterprises and imposing an administrative charge on it and, second, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the invoices issued by the ECHA following adoption of Decision SME(2013) 4672.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Decision SME(2013) 4672 of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 28 May 2014;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.