ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal misinterpreted; — Article 47(b)(ii), read in conjunction with Article 86, of the Condition of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘CEOS’) in holding that the appellant could be summarily dismissed for insubordination without a disciplinary process; — Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in relation to the time allowed for the appellant to put his view before being dismissed; — Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in accepting as proven accusations that the appellant had engaged in criminal conduct, although he had been neither charged with, nor convicted of, such conduct before a criminal court; — The employer’s duty of care in holding that ECDC did not need to afford the appellant certain rights of defence during an administrative inquiry under Annex IX to the Staff Regulations;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/48

Action brought on 12 June 2015 — IR v OHIM — Pirelli Tyre (popchrono)

(Case T-132/15)

(2015/C 311/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: IR (Caen, France) (represented by: C. de Marguerye, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘popchrono’ — Community trade mark No 4 177 267

Procedure before OHIM: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 February 2015 in Case R 217/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— receive its conclusions;

— rescind the decision of 13 February 2015 of the Board of Appeal;

— confirm the property rights of the trademark POPCHRONO;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the right to be heard;

— Narrow interpretation of ‘genuine use’ by the Board of Appeal;

— Resumption of genuine use of a community trademark in question should have been examined by OHIM according to pieces submitted by the applicant, including a prior license agreement for more than three months before the introduction of the revocation request;
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error in law and a manifest error of assessment regarding the application of a general presumption in reaction to the exception for the protection of the purpose of EU investigations. The applicant puts forward the following errors: — the Commission’s error in law regarding the application of the general exceptions; — the Commission’s error in law regarding the protection of the purpose of investigations; — the Commission’s error in law and manifest error of assessment regarding the assessment of the overriding public interest of ensuring an effective judicial review (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union); and — the Commission’s error in law regarding the application of the fundamental right of access to documents (Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/47

Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — Werner (Dynamic Life)

(Case T-454/15)

(2015/C 320/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Pérez Serres, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Matthias Werner (Neufahrn, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in white, red, orange, yellow, green and blue purple containing the word elements ‘Dynamic Life’ — Application for registration No 11 303 468

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2015 in Case R 441/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— revoke the contested decision and reject the CTM No 011303468 DYNAMIC LIFE & design in classes 5 and 32;

— order OHIM and Mr. Matthias Werner, in case he decides to intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/12

Action brought on 14 July 2015 — DIMA Verwaltungs v OHIM (Shape of a container)

(Case T-383/15)

(2015/C 328/11)

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 12 649 364

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2015 in Case R 2568/2014-5

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 328/19

Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Kolachi Raj Industrial/Commission

(Case T-435/15)

(2015/C 328/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd (Karachi, Pakistan) (represented by: P. Bentley, QC)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 (1) in so far as it: — (i) rejects the applicant’s request for an exemption from any extension of anti-dumping measures to imports of bicycles consigned from Pakistan; — (ii) extends the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 (2) on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned by the Applicant from Pakistan; and — (iii) orders the collection of the said duty on imports consigned from Pakistan and registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 938/2014 (3).

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 13(2)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51). More specifically, in the application of Article 13(2)(b) the defendant committed errors of procedure and law, and used incoherent reasoning.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 of 18 May 2015 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not (OJ 2015 L 122, p. 4).

(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 17).

(3) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 938/2014 of 2 September 2014 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China by imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ 2014 L 263, p. 5).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/44

Action brought on 25 August 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (ConnectedWork)

(Case T-491/15)

(2015/C 337/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (Represented by: U. Sander, 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 ‘ConnectedWork’ — Application for registration No 13 011 267

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2015 in Case R 160/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/13

Action brought on 3 July 2015 — JT v OHIM — Carrasco Pirard and others (QUILAPAYÚN)

(Case T-249/15)

(2015/C 337/16)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: JT (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Mena Valenzuela, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eduardo Carrasco Pirard (Santiago, Chile), Guillermo García Campos (Brussels, Belgium), Luis Hernán Gómez Larenas (Paris, France), Hugo Lagos Vásquez (Taverny, France), Ismael Oddo Méndez (Santiago, Chile), Carlos Quezada Salas (Colombes, France), Ricardo Venegas Carhart (Santiago, Chile), Sebastián Quezada (Paris, France)

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 ‘QUILAPAYÚN’ — Application for registration No 9 267 287

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2015 in Case R 354/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; and

— reject the application for registration of the figurative mark ‘QUILAPAYÚN’ for goods and services in Class 9 and Class 41 brought before OHIM by the applicants Eduardo Carrasco Pirard, Guillermo García Campos, Luis Hernán Gómez Larenas, Hugo Lagos Vásquez, Ismael Oddo Méndez, Carlos Quezada Salas, Ricardo Venegas Carhart and Sebastián Quezada on 16 September 2010.

Plea in law

Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) and 2(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 read in conjunction with Article 6bis(1) of the Paris Convention.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that no sums were to be recovered from the applicant The applicant claims in this regard that the defendant has not undertaken its own review of the attribution of the infrastructure costs at issue. Furthermore, the Commission’s attribution of those costs to the contract concluded by the applicant in 2006 was not lawful, since it runs contrary to the Commission’s existing decision-making practice and the Commission did not take account of the facts of the case that were publically available. In the alternative, in connection with this plea in law, the applicant claims that the attribution of those costs should have been significantly lower.
Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Incorrect assessment of the nuclear power station as ‘new technology’

In that regard, it is claimed that the decision is also void because the Commission wrongly relies on the fact that the technology at issue is new technology.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/46

Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Mengozzi v OHIM — Consorzio per la Tutela dell’Olio Extravergine di Oliva Toscano (TOSCORO)

(Case T-510/15)

(2015/C 354/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Roberto Mengozzi (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: T. Schuffenecker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consorzio per la Tutela dell’Olio Extravergine di Oliva Toscano IGP (Florence, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘TOSCORO’/Community trade mark No 2 752 509

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 June 2015 in Case R 322/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partly uphold the contested decision and annul that part of the decision which invalidated the CTM registration for the goods ‘Edible oils fats; edible vegetable oils, notably olive oils’ as well as ‘green and black olive creams’;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal;

— order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, should it become an intervening party in this case.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(k) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 6(1) of Regulation EU No. 1151/2012;

— Infringement of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No. 1151/2012;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/43

Action brought on 1 September 2015 — Aranynektár v OHIM — Naturval Apícola (Natür-bal)

(Case T-503/15)

(2015/C 354/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Aranynektár Termékgyártó és Kereskedelmi kft (Dunavarsány, Hungary) (represented by: I. Molnár, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Naturval Apícola, SL (Monserrat, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Natür-bal’ — Application for registration No 11 374 841

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2015 in Case R 1158/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present application (action);

— alter the contested decision, reject the appeal made by the opponent against the decision of the Opposition Division (decision No B 2 156 383 dated 5 March 2014) and uphold the said decision of the Opposition Division;

— condemn the opponent to bear the costs and fees of the proceedings.

Plea(s) in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/45

Action brought on 24 September 2015 — Paglieri Sell System v OHIM (APOTEKE)

(Case T-563/15)

(2015/C 371/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Paglieri Sell System SpA (Pozzolo Formigaro, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and F. Braga, 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 figurative mark containing the word element ‘APOTEKE’ — Application for registration No 13 014 691

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2015 in Case R 2428/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that there was a breach and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— declare that there was a breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs and fees incurred for the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/47

Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Hungary v European Commission

(Case T-505/15)

(2015/C 381/57)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G.Koos and A. Pálfy, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul in part Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 4076 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States 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 EUR 6 3 24 349,33 relating to the cross compliance audit, and

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant disputes the findings of the Commission.

In that regard, the applicant states that the Commission complains that, in accordance with the fundamental principles applicable to the verification of aid, both the sanctions not imposed because of the inadequate or wholly absent verifications of cross compliance (the legal requirements of management and good agricultural and ecological conditions) and the sanctions provided for by the rules but deprived of their deterrent effect because they have not been applied or have been applied incorrectly must be regarded as fundamentally deficient verifications. Further, the Commission complains that, in a case of non-compliance considered to be ‘minor’ within the meaning of Article 24(2) of Regulation No 73/2009/EC, the Hungarian authorities applied tolerance thresholds on the basis of which no sanctions were imposed but which did not take into account aspects relating to animal and human health, in breach of the provisions of the EU legislation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/48

Action brought on 8 September 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Globo (Bimbo)

(Case T-528/15)

(2015/C 381/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Globo SpA Servizi Commerciali (Illasi, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of 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 ‘Bimbo’ — Application for registration No 10 028 405

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2015 in Joined Cases R 2512/2013-4 and R 2549/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— modify the contested decision in accordance with Article 65.3 CTMR, rejecting the CTM Application no 10 028 405 in class 28;

— subsidiarity and only in the case the above claim would be rejected, annul the contested decision

— order the defendants to pay the costs, as stated in article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (former 87.2).

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Rule 19(1) (2) (3) and Rule 20(1) of the Regulation No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Article 64(1) of the Regulation No 207/2009 and related case-law;

— Infringement of Article 43(2) and (3) of the Regulation No 207/2009;

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement and/or incorrect application of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. — The applicant submits that there has in the present case been an incorrect assessment of the limit to the exception relied on by the Commission to refuse access to the documents relating to infringement procedure No 2009/4426, that limit consisting in the existence of ‘an overriding public interest in disclosure’, to which the final part of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 refers. — The reclamation plan authorised and now completed, which was to be directly implemented by Syndial (the owner of the land), on the site at Cengio, fully complies with Community principles relating to the remediation and rehabilitation of areas affected by historical contamination. — The position adopted by the Italian Republic in procedure No 2009/4426 appears, unexpectedly, to surrender the public interest pursued at national level by uncritically accepting the Commission’s complaints, forgetting that the procedure which culminated in authorisation of the reclamation plan for the site followed the steps laid down at national level for the purpose of obtaining authorisation — and did so before the Ministry which is now challenging its validity. There is therefore an important and overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 in allowing Syndial to ascertain whether any checks are actually being carried out as to whether there is compliance with Community principles. — Syndial’s requests do not pursue a private interest — which would in any event be legitimate — but rather the, more significant, public interest in ensuring that the propriety and proper conduct of the Community procedure in question and of the domestic administrative procedure are effectively protected (matters which are expressly protected, as regards the Community procedure, under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, as regards the domestic administrative procedure, under Article 97 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic): that interest is related not only to the rights of defence of the individual (directly concerned by the effects of the decisions adopted in the infringement procedure) but, in particular, to the fundamental right to environmental information which is confirmed by the principles of EU law (Article 191(2) and (3), first subparagraph, TFEU in conjunction with the principle in Article 11 TFEU, also given effect by the accession of the European Union to the Aarhus Convention of 27 June 1998).