ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/28

Action brought on 23 September 2013 — Braun Melsungen v OHIM (SafeSet)

(Case T-513/13)

2013/C 336/61

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: B. Braun Melsungen AG (Melsungen, Germany) (represented by M.-C. Seiler, lawyer)

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 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2013;

— Alter the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2013 so that the preceding rejection decision of OHIM of 25 June 2012 is annulled;

— Alter the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2013 so that the registration procedure is continued;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SafeSet’ for goods in Class 10 — Community trade mark application No 10 549 368

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c), 7(2), 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 352/19

Action brought on 19 September 2013 — Éditions Quo Vadis v OHIM — Gómez Hernández (‘QUO VADIS’)

(Case T-517/13)

2013/C 352/35

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Éditions Quo Vadis (Carquefou, France) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Francisco Gómez Hernández (Jacarilla, Spain)

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 10 July 2013 given in Case R 1166/2012-4.

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 word mark ‘QUO VADIS’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 33 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 8 871 758

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark No 92 422 947 for the word mark ‘QUO VADIS’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 and French trade mark No 1 257 750 for the word mark ‘QUO VADIS’ for goods in Class 16

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/57

Action brought on 3 September 2013 — G-Star Raw v OHIM — PepsiCo (PEPSI RAW)

(Case T-473/13)

2013/C 344/105

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: G-Star Raw CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J. van Manen, M. van de Braak and L. Fresco, lawyers)

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

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 June 2013 given in Case R 1586/2012-2;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings;

— Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the present proceedings, should it intervene, as well as those incurred in the proceedings before the OHIM.

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: Figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘PEPSI RAW’ for goods in class 32 — Community trade mark application No 6 788 004

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Verbal mark ‘RAW’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark No 4 743 225

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition and rejected the CTM application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 359/17

Action brought on 26 September 2013 — Kicks Kosmetikkedjan/OHMI — Kik Textilien und Non-Food (KICKS)

(Case T-532/13)

2013/C 359/33

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: K. Strömholm, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision;

— order the OHIM to pay the costs, or alternatively, if applicable, an intervening party to do so;

— authorise the registration of the contested application No 9245473 in its entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB

Community trade mark concerned: the verbal mark ‘KICKS’ for goods and services in classes 3, 8, 14, 21 and 35 — application No 9245473

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German and international word mark ‘kik’ for services in class 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: upheld the opposition for the contested goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
By the first ground for annulment, relating to the correction in the aid scheme for the processing of peaches and pears, the Hellenic Republic contends that the imposition of corrections in 2013 after more than four years’ inaction on the part of the Commission regarding deficiencies in the control system, which relate to the financial years 2006 and 2007 and had already been identified in 2008, infringes the general principle of legal certainty and the general principles requiring action to be taken within a reasonable time and the Commission to act timeously, on account of the unjustifiable and excessive length of the procedure which is prejudicial to the Hellenic Republic in the present financial situation, and it constitutes an absolute financial surprise.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging distortion by the Civil Service Tribunal of the facts and evidence both when the Civil Service Tribunal held that the appellant enjoyed the protection provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 22a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and when the Civil Service Tribunal held that the appellant had not put forward any evidence that the administrative inquiry directed against it was initiated by way of retaliation (concerning paragraphs 87, 88 and 94 of the judgment under appeal).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/31

Action brought on 12 November 2013 — Wilo v OHIM (Pioneering for You)

(Case T-601/13)

2014/C 24/56

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wilo SE (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by B. Schneiders, lawyer)

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

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2013 in Case R 555/2013-4;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Pioneering for You’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 11, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 11 065 588

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/35

Action brought on 20 November 2013 — AIC v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)

(Case T-616/13)

2014/C 24/65

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: AIC S.A. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ACV Manufacturing (Seneffe, Belgium)

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 10 September 2013 given in Case R 293/2012-3;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The design for a product described as ‘heat exchanger inserts’ — Registered Community Design No 1 137 152-0001

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the design did not fulfil the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2), in conjunction with Articles 5 and 6 and in particular Article 8(1) and (2) CDR

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 4(2) CDR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/11

Action brought on 25 October 2013 — Hostel Tourist World v OHIM — WRI Nominees (Hostel Tourist World.com)

(Case T-566/13)

2014/C 31/19

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hostel Tourist World, SL (Seville, Spain) (represented by: J.M. Bartrina Díaz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WRI Nominees Ltd (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul OHIM’s decision in so far as it upholds the appeal lodged by WRI Nominees Ltd, concerning the cancellation or invalidity of Community trade mark No 7 241 862 HOSTELTOURISTWORLD for Classes 39 and 43 in the International Classification;

— pursuant to Article 65(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, dismiss the appeal lodged by WRI Nominees Ltd in relation to the invalidity of Community trade mark No 7 241 862‘HOSTELTOURISTWORLD.COM’ for Classes 35, 39 and 43 in the International Classification, or, in the alternative, order OHIM to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court delivered in accordance with the terms indicated in the application; and

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned, in respect of which an application for a declaration of invalidity was made: Figurative mark ‘HostelTouristWorld.com’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 43 — Registered Community trade mark No 7 241 862

Proprietor of the mark: The applicant

Applicant for a declaration of invalidity: WRI Nominees Ltd

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) thereof, and of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Article 53(1)(c) thereof

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal of WRI Nominees Ltd upheld in part and decision of the Cancellation Division annulled in part

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Articles 63 and 64 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/23

Action brought on 24 October 2013 — FSA v OHIM — Motokit Veículos e Acessórios (FSA K-FORCE)

(Case T-558/13)

2014/C 24/40

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: FSA Srl (Busnago, Italy) (represented by: M. Locatelli and M. Cartella, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Motokit Veículos e Acessórios, SA (Vagos, Portugal)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 August 2013 given in Case R 436/2012-2;

— Order that the word mark FSA K-FORCE be registered;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark FSA K-FORCE — Community trade mark registration No 9 191 909

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Article 53(1)(a) CTMR in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the registration of the CTM invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR and Article 75 CTMR.
—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2013 (Case R 128/2013-4) and alter the contested decision to the effect that the mark ‘SmartTV Station’ (Application No: 010595577) is allowed to proceed to registration in its entirety;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/17

Action brought on 29 November 2013 — Arctic Paper Mochenwangen v Commission

(Case T-634/13)

2014/C 31/29

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH (Wolpertswende, Germany) (represented by: S. Kobes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Article 1(1) of Decision 2013/448/EU of the defendant of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2013) 5666, OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27), in so far as it rejects the inscription of the installation listed in Annex I, Point A with the installation identification code DE000000000000563 on the list of installations covered by Directive 2003/87/EC submitted by Germany to the Commission pursuant to Article 11(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC and the corresponding preliminary annual amounts of emission allowances allocated free of charge to these installations;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies in essence on the following pleas in law:

— The contested decision infringes Directive 2003/87/EC and Decision 2011/278/EU (2) in so far as it is contested by the applicant. The decision is also incompatible with the principle of proportionality and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

— The Decision 2011/278/EU does not preclude an additional preliminary allocation of free allowances as compensation for a case of hardship. In any event, the guarantees of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, particularly the fundamental rights to conduct a business and to property, as well as the principle of proportionality require a specific allocation in cases of hardship as compensation for undue burdens resulting from emissions trading.

— Finally, the applicant alleges infringement of the requirements of a fair administrative practice pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Prior to the decision, the applicant was not given any opportunity to express an opinion.

(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

(2) 2011/278/EU: Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2011) 2772) (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/12

Action brought on 12 December 2013 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Diseños Mireia (D and M)

(Case T-662/13)

2014/C 61/21

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and C. Mellein, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Diseños Mireia, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2013 given in Case R 911/2012-1 and cancel the contested trade mark;

— Alternatively: Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2013 given in Case R 911/2012-1 and remit the case;

— Alternatively: Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2013 given in Case R 911/2012-1.

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 consisting of the letters ‘D’ and ‘M’ for goods in Class 14 — Community trade mark application No 9 737 917

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community trade mark registration No 3 984 044 for the word mark ‘dm’ for goods in Class 14

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1) (b) CTMR
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/37

Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling)

(Case T-624/13)

2014/C 45/64

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (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: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2013 given in Case R 1504/2012-2;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of 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 claiming the colour green containing the verbal element ‘Darjeeling’ for Classes 25, 35 and 38 — the Community trade mark application No 9 466 269

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community collective trade mark registration No 4 325 718 of the word mark ‘DARJEELING’ for goods in Class 30; Community collective trade mark registration No 8 674 327 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DARJEELING’ for goods in Class 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/41

Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Bolloré (BLUECO)

(Case T-684/13)

2014/C 52/78

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Pechan and S. Körber, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bolloré SA (Érgue Gaberic, France)

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 8 October 2013 in Case R 2029/2012-1 and alter it to the effect that the appeal is well founded and the opposition is therefore to be rejected in its entirety;

— Order OHIM and Bolloré SA, should the latter intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘BLUECO’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark application No 9 724 675

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bolloré SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘BLUECAR’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark No 4 597 621

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/14

Action brought on 24 December 2013 — TUI Deutschland GmbH v OHIM — Infinity Real Estate & Project Development (Sensimar)

(Case T-706/13)

2014/C 61/25

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: TUI Deutschland GmbH (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: D. von Schultz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Infinity Real Estate & Project Development GmbH (Rantum/Sylt, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General 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 17 October 2013 in Case R 1476/2012-1;

— reject the opposition to the applicant’s Community trade mark registration No 7 212 889;

— order OHIM to pay the costs relating to the cancellation proceedings, the appeal proceedings and this action before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Sensimar’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 35 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 7 212 889

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Infinity Real Estate & Project Development GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word marks ‘SANSIBAR’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 35 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(2) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.