ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/33

Action brought on 8 November 2010 — Hell Energy v OHIM — Hansa Mineralbrunnen (HELL)

(Case T-522/10)

()

2011/C 13/63

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hell Energy Magyarország kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hansa Mineralbrunnen GmbH (Rellingen, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 August 2010 in case R 1517/2009-1;

— Allow the registration of the Community trade mark application No 5937107; and

— Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the current proceedings as well as those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘HELL’, for goods in class 32 — Community trade mark application No 5937107

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: Community trade mark registration No 5135331 of the word mark ‘Hella’, for goods in class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division erred in their decisions in finding a likelihood of confusion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/42

Action brought on 15 November 2010 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (TRUVO)

(Case T-528/10)

()

2011/C 30/76

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Truvo Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: O. van Haperen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AOL LLC (Dulles, United States)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 August 2010 in case R 893/2009-2; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TRUVO’, for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 5632948

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: Community trade mark registration No 4756169 of the figurative mark ‘TRUVEO’ for services in class 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the community trade mark application for all of class 38

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred (i) in its visual and aural comparison of the signs, (ii) in its comparison of the signs as it refused to attribute any meaning to the trademark of the opposing party, (iii) in its comparison of the services, and (iv) in its assessment of the relevant public.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/33

Appeal brought on 21 December 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 6 October 2010 in Case F-2/10, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-594/10 P)

2011/C 55/59

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

— In any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal.

— Declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was perfectly admissible.

— Allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought by the appellant at first instance.

— Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings.

— In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 6 October 2010. That order dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly unfounded an action directed against the Commission’s refusal of his request for 100 % reimbursement of medical expenses relating to the illness from which he suffers.

In support of his appeal, the appellant submits that the findings concerning the object of the action and its admissibility were unlawful.

The appellant also alleges incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of Civil Service Tribunal, a total failure to state reasons and failure to give a ruling on claim made by the appellant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/26

Action brought on 21 December 2010 — ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v OHIM (Highprotect)

(Case T-565/10)

2011/C 55/47

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by U. Ulrich, 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 First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 September 2010 in Case R 1038/2010-1;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Highprotect’ for goods in Class 6.

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) since the trade mark concerned is not devoid of distinctive character and is not descriptive.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/20

Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Just Music Fernsehbetrieb v OHIM — France Télécom (Jukebox)

(Case T-589/10)

2011/C 72/34

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Just Music Fernsehbetrieb GmbH (Landshut, Germany) (represented by: T. Kaus, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: France Télécom SA (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 October 2010 in case R 1408/2009-1

— Order the defendant to reject the opposition decision of 30 September 2010 in case B 1304494 and to allow the application No 6163778 for registration in its entirety

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings

— Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division and

— In the alternative, stay the proceedings until a final decision is taken on the application for revocation lodged by the applicant on 21 December 2010 at OHIM against the earlier Community trade mark No 3693108.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Jukebox’, for services in classes 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 6163778

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 No 3693108 of the figurative mark ‘JUKE BOX’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes: (i) Articles 15 and 42(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as no proof of genuine use has been provided of the mark cited in the opposition proceedings — Community trade mark registration No 3693108 ‘JUKE BOX’, (ii) Articles 8(1)(b), 9 and 65(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the similarity of the contested trade mark, and (iii) Article 78 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to exercise its powers of investigation and failed to exercise the full remit of its powers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/24

Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Canon Europa v Commission

(Case T-34/11)

2011/C 80/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Canon Europa NV (Amstelveen, The Netherlands), (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Declare the action admissible;

— Annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1) and in particular the subdivisions introduced under Harmonized System (‘HS’) subheading 8443 31 and the corresponding duty rates; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1) and in particular the subdivisions introduced under HS subheading 8443 31 and the corresponding duty rates.

In support of its application, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

Firstly, the applicant claims that the application for annulment is admissible under Article 263 TFEU since the contested measure is a regulatory act which is of direct concern to the applicant and which does not entail any further implementing measures.

In addition, the applicant argues that the contested act is invalid because it reduces the scope of HS 2007 subheading 8443 31 by excluding Multifunctional Machines (‘MFMs’) which were previously classifiable under HS 2002 subheading 8471 60 from its scope, while the defendant may not modify the scope of HS subheadings pursuant to Article 3 of the HS Convention (1), and Article 1.2(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (2).

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the contested act is invalid because it modifies the duty rates applicable to certain MFMs previously classifiable under HS 2002 subheadings 8471 60 and 8517 21, and thereby violates Article 9.2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2658/87.

Finally, the contested act violates Article II of GATT 1994 (3) and the obligations undertaken by the EU in its Schedule of concessions because it imposes duties on certain MFMs for which the EU had undertaken to eliminate all customs duties.

(1) International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System of 14 June 1983.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

(3) The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision is vitiated by a series of errors of fact and law in the application of Article 101 TFEU in relation to the nature and scope of the supposed ‘cartel’, as: — The decision is vitiated by inadequate reasoning because it fails to explain the basis for its central findings and does not define the relevant markets. — The decision is affected by errors of assessment in relation to the nature and scope of the supposed ‘cartel’. In particular, the contacts alleged in the decision do not constitute a single worldwide network and the finding of a ‘common aim’ linking these contacts is not supported by the evidence; — The Commission has erred in law when it defined the elements of the alleged complex infringement; — The Commission has wrongly assessed the alleged complex infringement relating to non-commissioning of surcharges; and — The Commission has committed errors of law and of assessment when it treated the three alleged ‘elements’ of the infringement as a single infringement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/17

Action brought on 16 February 2011 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NANU)

(Case T-89/11)

2011/C 113/35

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (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: Vincci Hoteles S.A. (Alcobendas, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 November 2010 in case R 641/2010-1;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NANU’, for goods and services in classes 3, 4, 6, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 6218879

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 No 5238704 of the word mark ‘NAMMU’, for goods and services in classes 3, 32 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition and consequently partly rejected the Community trade mark application for goods and services in classes 3, 4, 16, 21 and 35 and rejected the opposition for goods and services in classes 6, 9, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 35

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled in part the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition for goods in classes 4, 16 and 21 and dismissed the appeal for the remainder and confirms the rejection of the Community trade mark application for goods and services in classes 3, 21 and 35

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 103/24

Action brought on 26 January 2011 — Kraft Foods Global Brands v OHIM — Fenaco (SUISSE PREMIUM)

(Case T-60/11)

2011/C 103/42

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC (Northfield, USA) (represented by M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fenaco Genossenschaft (Berne, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 November 2010, in Case R 522/2010-1, and

— Order the defendant and the co-defendant to bear the cost of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Fenaco Genossenschaft.

Community trade mark applied for: Figurative mark ‘SUISSE PREMIUM’ for goods and services of Classes 30, 31 and 42.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the Applicant.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘PREMIUM’ for goods of Class 30.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
—

annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;
8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the applicant’s right to a fair trail and, as a result, breached Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as: — The applicant was denied the opportunity to examine or cross-examine witnesses; — The applicant was denied the opportunity to comment on the calculation of the fine imposed on it; — The fine as imposed following an oral hearing that was not public and which the decision-maker did not attend; and — The contested decision was adopted by an administrative body, and no judicial body has jurisdiction to review all aspects of it.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 130/15

Action brought on 16 February 2011 — Apollo Tyres v OHIM — Endurance Technologies (ENDURACE)

(Case T-109/11)

2011/C 130/28

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Apollo Tyres AG (Baden, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Szilvasi, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Endurance Technologies Pvt Ltd (Aurangabad, India)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 November 2010 in case R 625/2010-1;

— Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ENDURACE’, for goods in class 12 and services in classes 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 6419824

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 No 5819149 of the figurative mark ‘ENDURANCE’ and device in colours, for goods in class 12

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the Community trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the applicant’s appeal and partially allowed the opponents’ request submitted under Article 8(3) RPBoA (1), and as a result partially rejected the Community trade mark application

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was likelihood of confusion.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96, of 5 February 1996, laying down the rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2082/2004, of 6 December 2004
—

declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Loba Emmanuel Patrice GNANGO, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,
1.

First plea, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 107(1) TFEU in finding the measure to constitute State aid — The Commission has not shown that the tax measure at issue favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’. The Commission merely assumes that the measure is selective because it applies only to the acquisition of shareholdings in foreign companies and not in domestic companies. The applicant submits that such reasoning is erroneous and circular. The fact that the application of the measure examined (as for any other tax rule) depends on the fulfilment of certain objective requirements does not render it, in law or in fact, a selective measure. The Commission’s reasoning would result in every tax rule being considered to be prima facie selective. — In the second place, the prima facie different treatment under Article 12(5) TRLIS, far from constituting a selective advantage, serves to place all transactions for the acquisitions of shares on an equal tax footing, whether they be national or foreign: owing to the impossibility of cross-border mergers, the amortisation of goodwill can be effected only in the national sphere, and therefore the tax system includes rules which allow that. In that regard, Article 12(5) TRLIS does no more than extend such a possibility to the purchase of assets in foreign companies, a transaction which represents the closest functional equivalent to domestic mergers and is thus integral to the scheme and broad logic of the Spanish system. — In the alternative, the Commission’s decision is disproportionate given that its application to cases in which control of foreign companies is taken should at least be equivalent to cases of domestic mergers and therefore justified by the scheme and broad logic of the Spanish system.
—

Annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, in so far as they concern the applicant;
1.

The contested decision was adopted in infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to petition, since, despite the admissibility of the applicant’s petition, the Parliament Committee on Petitions refused to hear the concerns submitted therein, and so the applicant’s right to have the content of his petition considered was refused.