ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/46

Action brought on 6 August 2015 — Trinity Haircare v OHIM — Advance Magazine Publishers (VOGUE)

(Case T-453/15)

(2015/C 320/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Trinity Haircare AG (Herisau, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Kroher and K. Bach, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in black and white containing the word element ‘VOGUE’ — Community trade mark No 9 944 547

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2015 in Case R 2426/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and declare the CTM No 009 944 547 VOGUE invalid;

— order OHIM and the other party to the proceeding before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/42

Action brought on 3 August 2015 — Indecopi/OHIM — Synergy Group (PISCO)

(Case T-446/15)

(2015/C 320/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y de la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual (Indecopi) (San Borja, Peru) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero and A. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Synergy Group sp. z o.o. (Wrocław, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘PISCO’ — Application for registration No 1016 7674

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 June 2015 in Case R 1291/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision, by declaring that the requirements for the application of the relative ground for refusal laid down in Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 are met in the present case, or, in the alternative, annul that decision; and

— order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 110/2008;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/9

Action brought on 22 June 2015 — DIMA Verwaltungs v OHIM (Shape of a container)

(Case T-326/15)

(2015/C 328/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DIMA Verwaltungs GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Kerkhoff, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of a container) — Application for registration No 12 649 174

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 April 2015 in Case R 2567/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to resume the registration procedure;

— in the alternative, declare that Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 does not preclude the registration and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/16

Action brought on 28 July 2015 — U-R LAB/OHIM (THE DINING EXPERIENCE)

(Case T-423/15)

(2015/C 328/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: U-R LAB (Paris, France) (represented by: G. Barbaut, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘THE DINING EXPERIENCE’ — Application for registration No 12 553 442

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2015 in Case R 2541/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul and alter the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/25

Action brought on 25 July 2015 — Fulmen v Council

(Case T-405/15)

(2015/C 337/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Fulmen (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: A. Bahrami and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well founded;

— order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 1 1 0 09 560 in respect of material damage and the sum of EUR 1 00 000 in respect of non-material damage; and

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging serious misconduct on the part of the Council, including misuse of its powers.

The applicant claims that the Council did not have the slightest evidence against it to support the reasons for including the applicant’s name on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures against Iran and that the Council used the contested measures in order to harm Iran’s industrial capacity and economic development.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/16

Action brought on 6 July 2015 — Työhönvalmennus Valma/OHIM (box shape)

(Case T-363/15)

(2015/C 337/18)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Työhönvalmennus Valma Oy (Lahti, Finland) (represented by: S. Salonen and K. Parviainen, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: (Representation of a tridimensional mark (Shape of box) — Application for registration No 12137337

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2015 in Case R 1690/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it upholds the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for is devoid of distinctive character with respect to the goods concerned;

— grant registration of the mark or alternatively refer the trade mark application back to OHIM for further consideration;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009/Regulation No 2868/95;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/48

Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v OHIM (Limbic® Types)

(Case T-516/15)

(2015/C 354/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze und G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Limbic® Types’ — Application for registration No 12 316 469

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2015 in Case R 1974/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision concerning the application for registration of the Community trade mark 012 316 469 Limbic® Types;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to exercise its powers correctly — In the event that the Court finds that the EU institution acted within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaties, Romania considers that that institution exercised its powers incorrectly and infringed the principle of good administration and Romania’s rights of the defence. — The Commission infringed its obligations in respect of due care and good administration, since it did not carefully examine all the relevant information available to it and did not request additional necessary information before adopting the contested decision. The Commission did not establish a direct causal link between the acts imputed to Romania and the loss of EU own resources. Nor did the Commission justify the sum required from Romania by reference to the amount of customs duty corresponding to the value of the transit operation in question but based it on the value remitted by Germany. — The Commission’s actions were unforeseeable and did not allow Romania to exercise its rights of the defence.
—

annul the Council Decision contained in the letter of 26 June 2015, addressed to the lawyers of the applicant, concerning review of the list of designated persons and entities in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, in so far as this decision constitutes a refusal to remove the applicant from the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/45

Action brought on 3 September 2015 — Kessel medintim v OHIM — Janssen-Cilag GmbH (Premeno)

(Case T-509/15)

(2015/C 354/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Kessel medintim GmbH (Mörfelden-Walldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Jacob and U. Staudenmaier, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Janssen-Cilag GmbH (Neuss, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Premeno’ — Application No 6 408 926

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 July 2015 in Case R 349/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and dismiss the opposition;

— in the alternative: refer the opposition back to OHIM for a new decision;

— order OHIM to pay the cost of the proceedings in accordance with Article 134(1) TFEU.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/45

Action brought on 15 July 2015 — J & Joy v OHIM — Joy-Sportswear (JN-JOY)

(Case T-388/15)

(2015/C 381/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: J & Joy SA (Waremme, Belgium) (represented by: A. Maqua and C. Pirenne, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joy-Sportswear GmbH (Ottensoos, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘JN-JOY’ — Application for registration No 11 410 041

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2015 in Case R 1353/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the Office:

— to review the division opposition judgment and declare the opposition inadmissible;

— to order the opponent to bear the costs and applicant’s fees in the opposition proceedings on the basis of article 81 CTM Regulation.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/41

Action brought on 14 September 2015 — Deutsche Post v OHIM — Verbis Alfa (InPost)

(Case T-537/15)

(2015/C 371/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues and T. Heitmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Verbis Alfa sp. z o.o. (Krakow, Poland), EasyPack sp. z o.o. (Krakow, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘InPost’ — Registration No 11 049 558

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2015 in Case R 546/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, insofar as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal in respect of identical services;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

fifth, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, order the Commission to pay Rose Vision the outstanding sums in respect of Rose Vision’s participation in the FP7 projects, which currently amount to EUR 1 95 571,13, for Commission projects sISI, FIRST, FutureNEM, 4NEM and SFERA, and to EUR 2 17 729,37, plus those amounts that will accrue in the future, for the European Research Agency projects E-Sponder and MaPEer SME. Both amounts, which are provisional and need to be calculated more accurately at a later stage in this procedure, should, in any event, be increased by the interest provided for in paragraph 5 of Article II.5 of General Conditions FP7;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the procedure followed by the assessment body was not in accordance with the procurement documents The applicant claims in this connection that the assessment body did not act in accordance with the procurement documents, inasmuch as it disposed of the applicant’ tenders without notifying the applicant or calling on it to clarify any ambiguities or errors. The applicant is further of the opinion that the assessment body should have assessed (and awarded points to) its tenders separately, even after they were combined in a single tender, since it is only by following this procedure that the principle of objective evaluation and assessment may be complied with. The procedure followed by the assessment body, in assessing the applicant’s tenders together and thus also awarding points with regard to the assessment criteria together, is misleading, discriminatory and in conflict with the basic principle of the procurement documents, and renders the decision impossible to review.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously applied the principle of personal responsibility in holding Coveris liable for alleged participation in a single and continuous infringement in the foam tray for retail food packaging sector in France. The exceptional circumstances of the case warranted the application of a holistic view in relation to the two parts of the ONO Packaging management buy-out or, alternatively, the application of the principle of economic continuity in relation to the asset deal part of the transaction. On that basis, Coveris could not be held liable for the alleged infringement.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the principle of sound administration, Articles 41 and 48 of the Charter, Article 135 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1), and Article 208 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1), and a breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons. — The Commission did not hear the applicants prior to the adoption of the decision by which it made provision for the termination of the grant agreement and ordered the repayment of the amounts received as advance funding. The Commission infringed the applicants’ rights of the defence, and also infringed Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012, Article 208 of Regulation No 1268/2012, and Articles 41 and 48 of the Charter. In addition, the Commission based the decision purely on assessments made by external experts, making reference to those assessments without providing a self-standing statement of reasons in that decision. The Commission thus infringed the principle of sound administration and breached its duty to provide an adequate statement of reasons.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/36

Action brought on 14 October 2015 — The Art Company B & S v OHIM — G-Star Raw (THE ART OF RAW)

(Case T-593/15)

(2015/C 414/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Art Company B & S, SA (Quel, Spain) (represented by: J. Villamor Muguerza and L. Sánchez Calderón, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: G-Star Raw CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘THE ART OF RAW’ — Application for registration No 11 093 036

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2015 in Case R 1980//2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM as well as the CTMA Applicant (in case it intervenes) to pay the costs of the present Appeal.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/70

Action brought on 12 November 2015 — JT International v OHIM — Habanos (PUSH)

(Case T-633/15)

(2016/C 027/88)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: JT International SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and M. Gilbert, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Corporación Habanos, SA (La Habana, Cuba)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘PUSH’ — Application for registration No 11 639 903

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 August 2015 in Case R 3046/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/48

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Tuum v OHIM — Thun (TUUM)

(Case T-635/15)

(2016/C 016/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tuum Srl (San Giustino, Italy) (represented by: B. Saguatti, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thun SpA (Bolzano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘TUUM’ — Application for registration No 11 939 774

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2015 in Case R 2624/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject definitively and in its entirety the opposition to the registration of the mark applied for in respect of the claimed goods in Class 14;

— instruct OHIM to register the mark applied for;

— order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/70

Action brought on 24 November 2015 — BMB v OHIM — Ferrero (Sweet box, packet)

(Case T-695/15)

(2016/C 038/94)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: BMB sp. z o.o. (Grójec, Poland) (represented by: K. Czubkowski, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferrero (Alba, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the design at issue: The applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 826 680-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2015 in Case R 1150/2012-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law

— Breach of Article 61(1) and (2) of Regulation No 6/2002;

— Breach of Articles 62 and 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;

— Breach of Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation No 6/2002;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/74

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Araujo v Parliament

(Case T-661/15)

(2016/C 048/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rui Araujo (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8663 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).