ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/59

Action brought on 9 September 2013 — Lumene v OHIM (THE YOUTH EXPERTS)

(Case T-484/13)

2013/C 344/109

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lumene Oy (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, 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 decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 June 2013 given in Case R 187/2013-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘THE YOUTH EXPERTS’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 44 — International registration No 1 112 578 designating the European Union

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/26

Action brought on 3 September 2013 — Marchiani v Parliament

(Case T-479/13)

2013/C 336/56

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Charles Marchiani (Toulon, France) (represented by: C.-S. Marchiani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Secretary General of 4 July 2013;

— annul the debit note of 5 July 2013;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant contests the decision of the European Parliament to recover the sums received between 2001 and 2004 by the applicant as Parliamentary assistance expenses.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging an irregularity in procedure, in so far as the decision of the of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 4 July 2013 is in violation of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008 concerning Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, of the adversarial principle and of the rights of defence.

2. Second plea in law, alleging an incorrect application of the regulation concerning fees and expenses of Members of the Parliament (the FEM regulation).

3. Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of the documents on the file.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a lack of impartiality on the part of the Secretary General of the European Parliament when adopting the decision dated 4 July 2013.
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicants’ right to access information

The applicants maintain, in the first place, that the contested Commission decision infringes their right to information conferred by Article 15(3) TFEU, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The applicants submit that the provisions referred to were designed to create maximum transparency and that exceptions must be narrowly construed. In addition, according to case-law, stringent requirements must be set as regards the proof of serious interference with the investigation. The contested decision does not fulfil that requirement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/60

Action brought on 11 September 2013 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — Kraft Foods Global Brands (TRIDENT PURE)

(Case T-491/13)

2013/C 344/110

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Perani, G. Ghisletti and F. Braga, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC (Northfield, United States)

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 9 July 2013 given in Case R 706/2012-4; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of present proceedings and the other party to pay the costs of present proceedings, as well as those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

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 ‘TRIDENT PURE’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark registration No 9 352 642

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘PURE WHITE’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark No 6 771 869; the figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘mentos PURE FRESH PURE BREATH’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark No 8 813 487; the figurative mark in white, light blue, blue and green containing the verbal element ‘PURE’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark registration 9 291 634; the word mark ‘PURE FRESH’ for goods in Class 30 — French trade mark No 63 431 610; the figurative mark in various shades of blue and white containing the verbal elements ‘mentos PURE FRESH’ for goods in Class 30 — International registration No 932 886 with effect in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden; the figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘mentos PURE FRESH’ for goods in Class 30 — Italian trade mark No 1 280 532; the figurative mark in various shades of blue and white containing the verbal elements ‘mentos PURE FRESH’ for goods in Class 30 — Benelux trade mark No 820 421; the figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘mentos PURE WHITE’ for goods in Class 30 — Benelux trade mark No 864 652

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Admitted the appeal and rejected the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 359/16

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

(Case T-531/13)

2013/C 359/32

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

— authorise the registration of the contested application No. 924 6166 in its entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘KICKS’ for goods and services in classes 3, 8, 14, 21 and 35 — application No 9246166

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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 352/20

Action brought on 19 September 2013 — Alpinestars Research v OHIM — Tung Cho et Wang Yu (A ASTER)

(Case T-521/13)

2013/C 352/37

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alpinestars Research Srl (Coste di Maser, Italy) (represented by: G. Dragotti and R. Valenti, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kean Tung Cho (Taichung City, Taiwan); and Ling-Yuan Wang Yu (Wuci Township, Taiwan)

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 15 July 2013 given in Case R 2309/2012-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘A ASTER’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 7 084 395

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘A-STARS’ for goods in Classes 9, 12, 14, 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark No 6 181 002

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) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 377/16

Action brought on 13 September 2013 — Seatech International and Others v Commission

(Case T-500/13)

2013/C 377/38

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Seatech International, Inc. (Cartagena, Colombia); Tuna Atlantic, Ltda (Cartagena); and Comextun, Ltda (Cartagena) (represented by: F. Foucault, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 672/2013 of 15 July 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 468/2010 establishing the EU list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, in so far as it designates the Marta Lucia R as a ship that engages in IUU fishing.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants claim that the Marta Lucia R was removed from the list of ships considered to be engaging in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, held by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, and that it should therefore be similarly removed from the European Union list of vessels engaged in IUU fishing.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/33

Action brought on 4 October 2013 — Three-N-Products/OHIM — Munindra (PRANAYUR)

(Case T-543/13)

2013/C 367/59

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Three-N-Products Private Ltd (New Delhi, India) (represented by: N. Colombo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Munindra Holding BV (Lelystad, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal No. R 638/2012-4 dated 25 July 2013 in its entirety and, consequently, reject the registration of the opposite application PRANAYUR;

— Order the OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Three-N-Products Private Ltd;

— Order Munindra Holding B.V. to pay the costs incurred by Three-N-Products Private Ltd.

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 ‘PRANAYUR’ for goods in classes 5 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 7 170 095

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘AYUR’ and figurative marks containing the word element ‘Ayur’

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) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/32

Action brought on 21 November 2013 — Alma — The Soul of Italian Wine v OHIM — Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE)

(Case T-605/13)

2014/C 24/59

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alma — The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP (Bal Harbor, United States) (represented by: F. Terrano, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedès, Spain)

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 10 September 2013 given in Case R 18/2013-2;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE’ — Community trade mark application No 9 784 539

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 registrations Nos 462 523, 6 373 971 and Spanish trade mark registrations Nos 152 231, 715 524, 2 796 505

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and rejected the CTM application in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.
—

The applicant argues in that regard that the results of the MARE, SENIOR and ECNR projects were delivered to the Commission within the time allowed, they results were considered excellent, and were fully accepted by the Commission and approved and signed by the European Commissioner responsible for the sector; the ENCR project was extended for an additional six months in recognition of the work carried out. Rejecting the overall costs of the projects would therefore be at variance with the principle of the right to be remunerated for work carried out, resulting in the Commission being unjustly enriched.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/36

Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Marchi Industriale v ECA

(Case T-620/13)

2014/C 24/68

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Marchi Industriale (Florence, Italy) (represented by: M. Baldassarri and F. Donati, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should annul and thereby declare invalid Decision No SME/2013/3747 of the European Chemicals Agency, thus rendering inoperative each of the effects of that decision, including the annulment of the invoices issued for the recovery of higher taxes and penalties purportedly owing.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision of the European Chemicals Agency that the applicant does not satisfy the requirements for being regarded as a small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), denying the applicant the benefits provided for in that regulation and providing that it is to pay the fees and charges allegedly owing.

The applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging total failure to state reasons, in so far as, notwithstanding the detailed documentary information provided to challenge the calculation criteria used to determine the size of the undertaking, the defendant failed to take any account the arguments put forward.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/29

Action brought on 14 November 2013 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)

(Case T-594/13)

2014/C 24/53

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sanctuary Brands LLC (New Canaan, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Richter International Ltd (Scarborough, Canada)

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 7 August 2013 given in Case R 1625/2012-1;

— 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 word mark ‘TAILORBYRD’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 9 325 507

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Non-registered figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘TAILORBYRD’, non-registered word mark and trade name ‘TAILORBYRD’ and the company name ‘Tailorbyrd, LLC’, used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom for ‘clothing, shirts’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/25

Action brought on 2 December 2013 — Meda v OHIM — Takeda (PANTOPREM)

(Case T-647/13)

2014/C 39/44

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Takeda GmbH (Constance, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 25 September 2013 in Case R 2171/2012-4 concerning the opposition against Community trade mark application No 9403973 ‘PANTOPREM’;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘PANTOPREM’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark application No 9403973

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Takeda GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Community word marks ‘PANTOPAN’, ‘PANTOMED’, ‘PANTOPRAZ’ and ‘PANTOPRO’ and the national word mark ‘PANTOP’ for goods in Class 5

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); the first sentence of Article 59; Article 64(1); Article 75; 76(1), in fine; Article 77 and Article 112(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/12

Action brought on 14 November 2013 — Siemag Tecberg Group v OHIM (Winder Controls)

(Case T-593/13)

2014/C 31/22

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Siemag Tecberg Group GmbH (Haiger, Germany) (represented by T. Sommer, 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 decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 in Case R 1261/2013-4;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs;

— Set a date for the hearing.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Winder Controls’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 35, 37, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 11 542 412

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
—

The applicant claims in particular in this regard that it does not understand why, in the present case, the defendant formed the view that the project which it had submitted was ineligible. The contested decision provides reasons for rejection which differ from those set out in the letter sent previously on 7 August 2013, stating that there was a failure to respect an eligibility criterion in the guidelines which differed from the criterion mentioned in the pre-printed part of that letter (distribution of the film to cinemas not undertaken by the applicant itself). However, in the contested decision, the project is rejected by reference to the fifth subparagraph of Article 5.1 of the guidelines, according to which a subcontractor may be used, albeit it to a limited extent.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/36

Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Oracle America v OHIM — Aava Mobile (AAVA CORE)

(Case T-618/13)

2014/C 45/63

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Oracle America, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: T. Heydn, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aava Mobile Oy (Oulu, Finland)

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 11September 2013 given in Case R 1369/2012-2;

— 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 word mark ‘AAVA CORE’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 712 811

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 6 551 626 of the word mark ‘JAVA’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42 and 45; well-known trade mark ‘JAVA’ in all Member States of the European Union for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42

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 Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.