ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/25

Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Aroa Bodegas v OHIM — Bodegas Muga (aroa)

(Case T-536/12)

2013/C 38/46

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Aroa Bodegas, SL (Zurukoain, Spain) (represented by: S. Alonso Maruri, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas Muga, SL (Haro, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul and therefore declare inapplicable the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2012 in Case R 1845/2010-4;

— annul and therefore declare inapplicable the decision of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2010 (opposition B1509499);

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with the word element ‘aroa’ for goods in Classes 29, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 8 276 297

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bodegas Muga, SL

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark with word element ‘aro’ for goods in Class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed in part

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/23

Action brought on 30 November 2012 — Rani Refreshments/OHMI — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani)

(Case T-523/12)

2013/C 32/36

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rani Refreshments FZCO (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: M. Chapple, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Poczesna, Poland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 September 2012 in case R 236/2012-4; and

— Order the defendant to pay to the applicant the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with its application and the decision.

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 ‘Sani’ in green, willow green and white, for among others, goods in classes 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 9087479

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2587244 of the figurative mark in green, white, black and blue ‘Rani’, for goods in class 32; Community trade mark registration No 4005211 of the figurative mark in blue and white ‘Rani’, for goods in classes 29 and 30; Community trade mark registration No 2587293 of the figurative mark in blue and white ‘RANI FLOAT’, for goods in class 32; Community trade mark registration No 2587269 of the figurative mark in orange, yellow, black, white, red, pink, blue and green ‘Rani’, for goods in classes 16, 21 and 32; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1239206 of the figurative mark ‘rani’, for goods in class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

The third plea alleges infringement of the right to effective judicial protection with regard to the statement of reasons for the measures, the lack of evidence in relation to the reasons stated and the rights of the defence and the right to property, given that the requirement to state reasons has not been fulfilled, which has an impact on the other rights.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/22

Action brought on 17 December 2012 — RiskMetrics Solutions/OHIM (RISKMANAGER)

(Case T-557/12)

2013/C 63/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RiskMetrics Solutions LLC (New York, United States) (represented by: I. De Freitas, Solicitor)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision in its entirety so that Community Trade Mark No 9 446 881 is accepted and proceeds through to publication;

— Order OHMI to pay the appellant’s costs in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘RISKMANAGER’ for goods and services in classes 9, 35 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 446 881

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/27

Action brought on 31 December 2012 — Łaszkiewicz v OHIM — Capital Safety Group EMEA (PROTEKT)

(Case T-576/12)

2013/C 108/71

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Grzegorz Łaszkiewicz (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, legal adviser)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Capital Safety Group EMEA, SAS (Carros Cedex, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside in its entirety the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October 2012 in Case R 700/2011-4;

— deliver final judgment — if the state of the proceedings so allows — by allowing registration of the Community trade mark applied for (Registration No 8478331);

— if necessary — should the state of the proceedings so allow — refer the case back for reconsideration by the Fourth Board of Appeal, in accordance with the binding criteria laid down by the Court of Justice;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in his action before the Board of Appeal and before the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

— collect the evidence indicated in the content of the application;

— conduct the written procedure, with Polish as the language of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘protekt’ for goods in Classes 6, 7, 9, 22 and 25 — Registration No 008478331

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Capital Safety Group EMEA, SAS

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community word mark Protecta, registered for goods in Classes 6, 7 and 9

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 71/24

Action brought on 8 January 2013 — NICO v Council

(Case T-6/13)

2013/C 71/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (Pully, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, G. Pandey, P. Gjørtler, D. Rovetta, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2), in so far as the contested acts include the Applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures; and

— Order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits five grounds of challenge concerning infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as well as infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law relating to their application: violation of the right of hearing, insufficient statement of grounds, violation of the right of defence, manifest error of assessment, and breach of the fundamental right to property.

The applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this, especially in relation to the imposition on current contractual engagements. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Council failed to supply a sufficient statement of reasons, which has been confirmed by the Council to the applicant, while requests for access to documents were not replied to. The applicant states that by these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, who was denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings were withheld from the applicant. Contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant claims that it is not a subsidiary of NICO Ltd, as this company no longer exists in Jersey, and in any case the Council has not substantiated that even it were a subsidiary, this would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested decision and regulation. Finally, the applicant finds that by imposing on the property rights and current contractual engagements managed by the applicant, the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.

(1) OJ 16.10.2012, L 282, p. 58

(2) OJ 16.10.2012, L 282, p. 16
‘Action brought on 7 June 2013 — Enosi Mastichoparagogon/OHIM — Gaba International (ELMA)

(Case T-309/13)

2013/C 325/86

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou (Chios, Greece) (represented by: A. Malamis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gaba International Holding AG (Therwil, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 26 March 2013, in Case R 1539/2012-4;

— Order the Office and other party (opponent before the Opposition Division and appellee before the OHIM’s Board of Appeal) to bear their own costs and pay those of the CTM applicant (applicant for annulment).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “ELMA” for goods in class 5 — International registration designating the European Community 900 845

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration of the word mark “ELMEX” for goods in classes 3, 5 and 21

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.’
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/23

Action brought on 22 January 2013 — Exakt Advanced Technologies v OHIM — Exakt Precision Tools (EXAKT)

(Case T-37/13)

2013/C 86/38

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Exakt Advanced Technologies GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany) (represented by: A. von Bismarck, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Exakt Precision Tools Ltd (Aberdeen, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 October 2012 in Case R 1764/2011-1;

— Order the intervener to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark including the word element ‘EXAKT’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9 and 37 — Community trade mark No 3 996 592

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Exakt Precision Tools Ltd

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the figurative mark including the word element ‘EXAKT’ for goods in Classes 7, 8 and 9

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009
—

Annul also Council Implementing Regulation No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 in so far as it includes BIM in the list of entities to which the measures freezing funds in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 are to apply;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/23

Action brought on 30 January 2013 — ClientEarth and Stichting BirdLife Europe v Commission

(Case T-56/13)

2013/C 101/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom); and Stichting BirdLife Europe (Zeist, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the defendant’s refusal of their request for access to the latest draft of a literature review, on the so-called ‘carbon-debt’ of bioenergy derived from biomass, pursuant to 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, and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the application of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community Institutions and Bodies; and

— Order the defendant to pay applicants’ costs for conducting these proceedings including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law.

The applicants contend that as a result of its failure to address them with an express decision regarding their request for access within the time-limits for the processing of confirmatory applications contained in Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the defendant impliedly refused access within the meaning of Article 8(3). Further, the applicants state that this implied refusal decision was unmotivated and therefore they submit that it should be annulled for the reason of the Commission’s breach of its obligation to state reasons under Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, Article 41(2), 3rd indent of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFEU.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/21

Action brought on 25 January 2013 — Cezar/OHIM — Poli-Eco (Skirting boards)

(Case T-39/13)

2013/C 101/45

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cezar Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjne Dariusz Bogdan Niewiński (Ełk, Poland) (represented by: M. Nentwig and G. Becker, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Poli-Eco Tworzywa Sztuczne sp. z o.o. (Szprotawa, Poland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of November 8, 2012 (case R 1512/2010-3);

— Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The trade design ‘skirting boards’ — Registered Community design No 70 438-0002

Proprietor of the Community trade design: The applicant

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application for a declaration of invalidity was based on a lack of novelty and individual character pursuant to Article 25 (1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4 to 6 of Council Regulation No 6/2002

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 25(1)(b), 63(1) and 62(1) of the Council Regulation No 6/2002.
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of right to a fair hearing in relation to the period up to 10 February 2003, as: — The contested decision bases its finding that Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘MEI’) participated in the alleged single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU relating to colour picture tubes (the ‘CPT cartel’) in the period before 10 February 2003 on two new claims, which did not appear in the Statement of Objections: first that MEI knew, or should have known, about the CPT cartel and secondly that MEI made a strategic decision to participate in the CPT cartel through bilateral contacts. Similarly, the contested decision relies for the first time on certain oral statements and documentary evidence, or parts thereof, in support of these allegations; — The inclusion of these allegations and materials for the first time in the contested decision constitutes a serious breach of Panasonic Corporation’s (‘Panasonic’) rights of defence is inadmissible and requires annulment of the said decision against MEI in respect of this period.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/27

Action brought on 6 February 2013 — GOLAM v OHIM — Glaxo Group (METABIOMAX)

(Case T-62/13)

2013/C 86/45

Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Glaxo Group Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 October 2012 in Case R 2089/2011-2;

— reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety;

— order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘METABIOMAX’, for goods in Classes 5, 16 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 8885261

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community word mark ‘BIOMAX’ which has been registered under No 2661858, for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partly upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division partly annulled.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/42

Action brought on 23 February 2013 — VTZ and Others v Council

(Case T-108/13)

2013/C 114/64

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO) (Volzhsky, Russia); Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO) (Taganrog, Russia); Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) (Kamensk-Uralsky, Russia); and Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) (Polevskoy, Russia) (represented by: J. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and G. Coppo, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1269/2012 of 21 December 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in, inter alia, Russia, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 insofar as it includes the sales referred to in paragraphs 23-33 of the Contested Regulation in the scope of the review investigation;

— As a consequence of the partial annulment requested above, correct the rate of the anti-dumping duty applicable to TMK group from 28,7% to 13,6%; and

— Order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

With the first plea in law, the applicants submit that the Council unlawfully relied upon criteria other than those set out in the wording of the relevant customs provisions to determine the classifications of the pipes referred to in paragraphs 23-33 of the contested regulation.

With the second plea in law, the applicants submit that the specific grounds relied upon by the Council to conclude that the pipes referred to in paragraphs 23-33 of the contested regulation do not fall under CN code 7304 59 10 are flawed.

With the third plea in law, the applicants submit that, in light of the specific circumstances of the case, the mere fact that the pipes referred to in paragraphs 23-33 of the contested regulation were actually used in the manufacture of tubes and pipes with other cross-sections and wall-thickness proves that they fall under CN code 7304 59 10.