ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 103/26

Action brought on 9 February 2011 — Nath Kalsi v OHIM — American Clothing Associates (RIDGE WOOD)

(Case T-80/11)

2011/C 103/45

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dwarka Nath Kalsi and Ajit Nath Kalsi (Agra, India) (represented by: J. Schmidt, 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: American Clothing Associates NV (Evergem, Belgium)

Forms 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 19 November 2010 in Case R 599/2010-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dwarka Nath Kalsi and Ajit Nath Kalsi.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative marks containing the word element ‘RIDGE WOOD’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 24 and 25.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: American Clothing Associates NV.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘RIVER WOODS’ and figurative marks containing the word element ‘RIVER WOODS’ und ‘River Woods’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 40.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the two marks at issue; Infringement of Article 15(1) und Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on account of failure to prove use of the earlier marks, and infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the facts presented by American Clothing Associates were insufficient to establish a reputation within the meaning of this Article.

(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 120/16

Action brought on 23 February 2011 — Mizuno v OHIM — Golfino (G)

(Case T-101/11)

2011/C 120/37

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Mizuno Corp. (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Golfino AG (Glinde, 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 15 December 2010 in Case R 821/2010-1 in its entirety;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark containing the letter ‘G’ together with other symbols, for goods in Class 25

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Golfino AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark containing the letter ‘G’ together with a plus sign, for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was granted and the application was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and indirectly of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as there is no 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 113/20

Action brought on 17 February 2011 — Ferrari v OHIM (PERLE’)

(Case T-104/11)

2011/C 113/39

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Ferrari F.lli Lunelli SpA (Trento, Italy) (represented by P. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 1249/2010-2 delivered on 8 December 2010 and notified on 17 December 2010.

— Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: International figurative mark (No W 10510030) containing the word element ‘PERLE’’ for goods in Classes 3, 25 and 33 in respect of which the applicant has sought Community protection.

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected in part the request for protection.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal.

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
2.

Second plea in law alleging a misuse of powers, in so far as the contested acts (i) pursue an aim other than that defined in Article 21 TEU, namely the advancement in the wider world of democracy and of the rule of law, L. Gbagbo having been proclaimed president of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire in a democratic manner and (ii) infringe the Charter of the United Nations, of which the European Union promotes the observance, the defendant having disregarded the principle of non-interference in a State's internal affairs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/26

Action brought on 15 March 2011 — High Tech v OHIM — Vitra Collections (Shape of a chair)

(Case T-161/11)

2011/C 139/50

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: High Tech Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vitra Collections AG

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision and declare Community trade mark No 2.298.420 invalid

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A three-dimensional figurative mark based on the ‘Alu chair’ (Community trade mark No 2 298 420), for goods in Class 20

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Vitra Collections AG

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: High Tech Srl

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation 207/2009. The applicant also claimed that the mark should be declared invalid on the ground that its registration is intended to exclude the applicant from the market in design objects that have entered the public domain and therefore the registration was in bad faith.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Misinterpretation and misapplication of Articles 7(1)(e)(iii) and 52(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/27

Action brought on 17 March 2011 — Cofra v OHIM — O2 (can do)

(Case T-162/11)

2011/C 139/51

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cofra Holding AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K.-U. Jonas and J. Bogatz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom)

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 10 January 2011 in Case R 242/2009-4;

— Order the defendant and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: O2 Holdings Ltd.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘can do’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 25, 35, 36, 38 and 43.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘CANDA’ for goods in Class 25.

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 15 and Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) and of Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, (2) in that the Board of Appeal applied criteria which are too narrow in assessing the proof of use sufficient to maintain the right and failed to have sufficient regard to the particular distribution situation in the applicant’s undertaking. Further, infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, in that the Board of Appeal wrongly failed to have regard to various documents submitted as proof of use sufficient to maintain the right in the opposing mark. Finally, infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, in that the Board of Appeal did not inform the applicant that it regarded the proof of use submitted as insufficient and did not provide the applicant with an opportunity of submitting further proof in oral proceedings.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Article II.19(1) of the general conditions of Contract LSHB — CT-2004-503319 concerning the ‘ALLOSTEM’ project under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2002-2006) (‘the ALLOSTEM Contract’), as the Commission limited, or deprived, the applicant of the possibility to adduce evidence of the proper performance of the contract with respect to the eligibility of personnel costs by failing to observed the criteria for defining eligible costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/32

Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Telefónica de España and Telefónica Móviles España v Commission

(Case T-151/11)

2011/C 145/53

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Telefónica de España Madrid, Spain and Telefónica Móviles España (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz, F. Salerno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 20 July 2010;

— in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present case is directed against the Commission decision of 20 July 2010, concerning the aid scheme C 38/09 (ex NN 58/09) which Spain is planning to implement for Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española (RTVE) (OJ 2010 L 1, p. 9) declaring compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU the new financing model for the public television broadcasting body Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española introduced by Law 8/2009 of 28 August 2009.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, in so far as the Commission has failed to initiate the procedure provided for in that provision in relation to the separation of the financing from the contested measure as a whole.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108 TFEU, in so far as the Commission establishes the separation of the financing of the measure as a whole and incorrectly defines as new aid only the additional financing. Acting in this way, the Commission does not comply with the case-law or the Commission’s decision-making practice

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 56 TFEU, since the decision does not provide any explanation as to how it reached the conclusion that the three fiscal measures introduced or amended by Articles 4, 5 and 6 of Law 8/2009 are dissociable from RTVE’s current system of financing.

4. Error of law by dissociating the source of financing of the measure, in so far as the incompatibility of the sources of finance with Community law must necessarily involve its incompatibility with the rules on State aid. The applicant asserts in that regard that the contested decision declares compatible an aid linked to financing that the Commission, in parallel proceedings, has held to be contrary to European Union law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 160/23

Action brought on 25 March 2011 — Automobili Lamborghini v OHIM — Miura Martínez (Miura)

(Case T-191/11)

2011/C 160/37

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Automobili Lamborghini Holding SpA (Sant’Agata Bolognese, Italy) (represented by: P. Kather, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eduardo Miura Martínez (Sevilla, Spain) and Antonio José Miura Martínez (Sevilla, Spain)

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 21 January 2011 in Case R 161/2010-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Automobili Lamborghini Holding SpA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘Miura’, for goods and services in Classes 12, 14, 18, 25 and 28.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Eduardo Miura Martínez and Antonio José Miura Martínez

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International and national figurative marks, containing the word element ‘MIURA’, for goods and services in Classes 12, 14, 24, 25 and 39, the national word mark ‘MIURA’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25, and the name ‘MIURA’ used in the course of trade for the breeding of bulls.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), since the interveners had not shown the use of the marks cited in opposition, and infringement of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 since the applicant was not able to state the relevant considerations of the decisions, since the evidence of the opposition was not served on it.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
2.

Second plea in law alleging a substantive illegality of the contested decision by reason of an infringement of the right to property as well as of the principles of human dignity and equality, of an infringement of the freedoms of the TRABELSIs, of an interference with private life and of discrimination against a disabled child.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/18

Action brought on 26 April 2011 — Wall v OHIM — Bluepod Media Worldwide (bluepod media)

(Case T-227/11)

2011/C 194/30

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Wall AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bluepod Media Worldwide Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

— Partially annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2011 in case R 301/2010-1; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘bluepod media’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 6099709

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5660972 for the figurative mark ‘blue spot’, for services in classes 35, 36, 37 and 38; International trade mark registration No 880800 for the word mark ‘BlueSpot’, for services in classes 35, 37 and 38; German trade mark registration No 30472373 for the word mark ‘BlueSpot’, for services in classes 35, 37 and 38

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially allowed the appeal and partially rejected the application. Correspondingly, allowed the application in the remainder and partially rejected the opposition.

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 no likelihood of confusion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/18

Action brought on 11 April 2011 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission

(Case T-211/11)

2011/C 179/31

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Timab Industries (Dinard, France) and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) (Saint-Malo, France) (represented by: N. Lenoir, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 February 2011 refusing access to certain Commission documents relating to a procedure pursuant to Article 101 TFEU and Article 13 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, concerning a cartel on the European market in animal feed phosphates (Case COMP/38866).

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law:

1. First plea in law, alleging error of law and a manifest error of assessment in relation to the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, (1) in so far as the documents applied for are not opinions but decisions in respect of which it has not been established that disclosure might seriously undermine the decision-making process.

2. Second plea in law, alleging error of law and a manifest error of assessment in relation to the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as the documents applied for do not contain any sensitive commercial information precluding, even partly, their disclosure.

3. Third plea in law, alleging error of law and a manifest error of assessment in relation to the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as the Commission contended that the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits would be undermined.

(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 211/26

Action brought on 20 April 2011 — Inglewood and Others v Parliament

(Case T-229/11)

2011/C 211/57

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Lord Inglewood (Penrith, United Kingdom), Georges Berthu (Longré, France), Guy Bono (Saint-Martin-de-Crau, France), David Robert Bowe (Leeds, United Kingdom), Brendan Donnelly (London, United Kingdom), Catherine Guy-Quint (Cournon-d’Auvergne, France), Christine Margaret Oddy (Coventry, United Kingdom), Nicole Thomas-Mauro (Épernay, France), Gary Titley (Bolton, United Kingdom), Vincenzo Viola (Palermo, Italy), and Maartje van Putten (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Forms of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 1 April 2009 amending the voluntary additional pension scheme of Members of the European Parliament unlawful;

— annul the contested decisions;

— order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is brought against the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 1 April 2009 amending the voluntary additional pension scheme of Members of the European Parliament.

In support of their action, the applicants make four pleas in law on the substance, claiming:

— infringement of acquired rights conferred by legal acts and the principle of legal certainty;

— infringement of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in that the contested decisions raised the pensionable age by three years without transitional measures;

— infringement of Article 29 of the Rules on Expenses and Allowances of Members of the European Parliament, which provides that the Quaestors and the Secretary General are responsible for the interpretation and strict application of those rules;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/30

Action brought on 17 June 2011 — Kadio Morokro v Council

(Case T-316/11)

2011/C 226/59

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mathieu Kadio Morokro (Cocody, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: S. Le Damany, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011, (1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011, (2) in so far as they concern him,

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant raises a plea alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons in so far as the contested decision and regulation infringe Article 296 TFEU, pursuant to which legal acts of the European Union institutions must state the reasons on which they are based. The applicant submits, first, that the statement of reasons does not clarify why he was included on the list of persons, in the annex to the decision and the regulation, against whom certain restrictive measures were imposed and, second, that that failure to state reasons deprives him of the possibility to properly challenge the restrictive measures imposed on him.

(1) Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011, amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20).

(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011, amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10).
—

grant the applications for annulment and damages which the applicant brought before the Civil Service Tribunal, subject to the proviso that the applicant would be satisfied with the annulment of the decision adopted and would accept one euro as symbolic compensation for the damage caused to him;
—

The following are alleged in this regard: failure to conduct a proper investigation, distortion of the facts, incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of the rules of law relating to the incurring of Aquilian liability on the part of the institutions of the European Union, of the concept of the duty to state reasons incumbent on all European Union institutions and the European Union judicature and of the concept of unlawful conduct on the part of a European Union institution.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on a wrong interpretation and application of Article 4(1)(a), third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which relates to the protection of the public interest with regard to international relations, as: — The Council was wrong in not taking into account the constitutional nature of the document which the applicant requests to have access to; — The applicant considers that access to document 9689/10 is also warranted on the basis of the freedom of expression contained in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; — The Council omitted to take into account the specific circumstances and subject matter of the present case; and — The Council wrongly referred to hypothetical negative consequences of disclosure for future negotiations to be conducted by the Union.