ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/25

Action brought on 28 September 2012 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Ceramicas del Foix (Rock & Rock)

(Case T-436/12)

2012/C 379/43

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (Gladbeck, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ceramicas del Foix, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

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 10 July 2012 in case R 495/2011-2; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘Rock & Rock’, for goods in classes 2, 19 and 27 — Community trade mark registration No 3468774

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The request for a declaration of invalidity was based on relative grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009. The cancellation applicant invoked the following earlier rights: German trade mark registration No 30229274 of the word mark ‘Rock’, for goods and services in classes 1, 6, 7, 8, 17, 19, 37 and 42; German trade mark registration No 30212141 of the word mark ‘MASTERROCK’, for goods and services in classes 17, 19 and 37; German trade mark registration No 39920622 of the word mark ‘FIXROCK’, for goods in classes 6, 17 and 19; German trade mark registration No 2078534 of the word mark ‘FLEXIROCK’, for goods in class 19; German trade mark registration No 39732094 of the word mark ‘COVERROCK’, for goods in classes 17 and 19; German trade mark registration No 30306452 of the word mark ‘CEILROCK’, for goods in classes 6, 17 and 19

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
3.

The third plea concerns breach by the Commission of the principle of equal treatment by acceptance of a situation in which one category of products (artificial flowers and plants used for a festivity) is denied classification as festive articles because of a lack of festive imprints, ornaments, symbols or inscriptions, whereas other categories are so classified under heading CN 9505 even though the articles do not have such festive imprints, ornaments, symbols or inscriptions. In the course of trade in the European Union, binding tariff information issued by individual Member States exists that specifies classification under heading CN 9505 for articles (including artificial flowers) which do not bear particular symbols, designs or ornaments. This confirms that an article in itself, without inscriptions or ornaments, can be a symbol of specific festivities in the cultural circle of a particular Member State and is accordingly recognised, designed and manufactured there as a festive article. Neither the notes on Chapter 95 of the Combined Nomenclature nor the commentary in the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature show that, in order for a product to acquire the status of a festive article, it must be recognised as festive throughout the European Union. Such an interpretation of ‘festive article’ would lead to a situation where only a few products would meet these criteria. More than 500 million citizens with different traditions and cultures and differing faiths live in the European Union. Therefore, not only is there no common festive tradition in the European Union but also the list of holidays in individual Member States differs. Finally, some products directly classified under heading 9505 are festive in nature only in some Member States and the corresponding tradition is not known, or is not very popular, in the other Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/24

Action brought on 8 October 2012 — Novartis v OHIM — Tenimenti Angelini (LINEX)

(Case T-444/12)

2012/C 399/46

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tenimenti Angelini SpA (Montalcino, Italy)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 August 2012 in case R 414/2011-4; and

— 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 ‘LINEX’, for goods and services in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 8122863

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: Italian trade mark registration No 1281035 for the word mark ‘LINES PERLA’, for goods in classes 5, 16 and 25; Italian trade mark registration No 245598 for the word mark ‘LINES LADY’, for goods in class 5; Italian trade mark registration No 311801 for the word mark ‘LINES INTERVALLO’, for goods in class 5; Italian trade mark registration No 414841 for the word mark ‘LINES IDEA’, for goods in class 5; Italian trade mark registration No 584405 for the word mark ‘LINES SETA’, for goods in classes 5, 16 and 25; Italian trade mark registration No 607537 for the word mark ‘LINES SETA ALI’, for goods in classes 5, 16 and 25; Italian trade mark registration No 643382 for the word mark ‘LINES SETA ULTRA’, for goods in classes 5, 16 and 25; Italian trade mark registration No 980294 for the figurative mark ‘VELO’, for goods in classes 3, 5 and 16; Italian trade mark registration No 980295 for the figurative mark ‘LINES’, for goods in classes 3, 5 and 16; Italian trade mark application No MI2007C011896 for the figurative mark ‘LINES SETA’, for goods in classes 5, 16 and 25; well-known mark in Italy ‘LINES’, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 76(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/52

Action brought on 5 November 2012 — Coca-Cola v OHIM — Mitico (Master)

(Case T-480/12)

2013/C 26/105

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, D. Stone and L. Ritchie, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) (Damascus, Syria)

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 29 August 2012 in case R 2156/2011-2; and

— Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

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 ‘Master’, for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 9091612

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 8792475 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’; Community trade mark registration No 3021086 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’; Community trade mark registration No 2117828 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’; Community trade mark registration No 2107118 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2428468 of the figurative mark ‘C’

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) of Council Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/38

Action brought on 25 October 2012 — Tridium v OHIM — q-bus Mediatektur (SEDONA FRAMEWORK)

(Case T-467/12)

2013/C 9/70

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tridium, Inc. (Richmond, Unites States) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: q-bus Mediatektur GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

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 2 August 2012 in case R 1943/2011-2; and

— 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 ‘SEDONA FRAMEWORK’, for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No 9067372

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: International trade mark registration No 934023 of the figurative mark ‘~sedna’, for goods in class 9

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/56

Action brought on 14 November 2012 — Sanofi v OHIM — GP Pharm (GEPRAL)

(Case T-493/12)

2013/C 26/113

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sanofi (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Hertz-Eichenrode, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: GP Pharm, SA (Sant Quinti de Mediona, 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 5 September 2012 in case R 201/2012-2; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

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 ‘GEPRAL’, for goods in class 5 — International Registration No 1010832 designating the European Union

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration No 418607, with effect in Austria of the word mark ‘DELPRAL’, for goods in class 5

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and allowed the International registration to proceed in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment In relation to the second plea in law, stating that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in reaching the conclusion that Hidroelectrica’s actions were imputable to the Romanian State, ALRO will demonstrate that the Commission has failed to analyse correctly the governance structure of Hidroelectrica and the impact that this structure has on the decision-making process of this organisation. Secondly, ALRO will outline why the Commission was wrong to compare the ALRO contract to the agreement between Hidroelectrica and ArcelorMittal. Thirdly, it will demonstrate why the Ministerial Order No 445/2009 is not relevant to the Commission’s analysis and why its references to press reports in 2010 are insufficient to meet the evidentiary threshold necessary to demonstrate imputability.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/21

Action brought on 18 December 2012 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Redrock Construction (REDROCK)

(Case T-548/12)

2013/C 63/41

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (Gladbeck, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Redrock Construction s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 October 2012 in case R 1596/2011-4; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark in black and white ‘REDROCK’, for, among others, goods and services in classes 1, 2, 17, 19 and 37 — Community trade mark registration No 3866365

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The request for a declaration of invalidity was based on the grounds laid down in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009. The cancellation applicant invoked the following earlier rights: German trade mark registration No 30229274 of the word mark ‘Rock’, for goods and services in classes 1, 6, 7, 8, 17, 19, 37 and 42; German trade mark registrations No 30312115, No 2078534, No 2078535, No 2079579, No 39502727, No 39517348, No 39543868, No 39551027, No 39605619, No 39644214, No 39707589, No 39737546, No 39920622, No 30166175, No 30166176, No 30166177, No 30212141, of the word marks ‘KEPROCK’, ‘FLEXIROCK’, ‘FORMROCK’, ‘FLOOR-ROCK’, ‘TERMAROCK’, ‘KLIMAROCK’, ‘SPEEDROCK’, ‘DUROCK’, ‘SPLITROCK’, ‘PLANAROCK’, ‘TOPROCK’, ‘KLEMMROCK’, ‘FLIXROCK’, ‘SONOROCK PLUS’, ‘VARIROCK’, ‘SONOROCK’, AND ‘MASTERROCK’, for goods and services in classes 17, 19 and 37.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request of declaration of invalidity against the CTM registration

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 38/26

Action brought on 13 December 2012 — Optilingua holding SA v OHIM — Esposito (ALPHATRAD)

(Case T-538/12)

2013/C 38/47

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Optilingua holding SA (Epalinges, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Michele Esposito (Cava de’ Tirreni SA, Italy)

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 8 October 2012 in Case R 444/2011-1;

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Figurative mark including the word element ‘ALPHATRAD’ for services in Classes 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark No 617 316

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Esposito

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for revocation is upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal is dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15(1)(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/24

Action brought on 28 December 2012 — Matrix Energetics International/OHIM (MATRIX ENERGETICS)

(Case T-573/12)

2013/C 63/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Matrix Energetics International, Inc. (Lynnwood, United States) (represented by: R. Böhm, 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 the Office Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 October 2012 in Case R 56/2012-4;

— Order the Office Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear the costs of the proceeding.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MATRIX ENERGETICS’ for services in class 41 — International registration No W 995 247

Decision of the Examiner: Refused protection of the International Registration designating the European Union

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality, as the applicant was unable to know which are the objectives legitimately pursued by the challenged decision and if any possible other measure less punitive has been explored.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/29

Action brought on 23 January 2013 — Meta Group v European Commission

(Case T-35/13)

2013/C 79/49

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Meta Group Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Bartolini, V. Colcelli and A. Formica, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the following notes from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Budget Execution (Directorate for General Budget and EDF):

— Note No 1328694 of 12 November 2012 concerning ‘Payment by offsetting of debts payable to or by the Commission’, in which the Commission informed the applicant that the debt of EUR 69 061,89 which META Group claimed to be owed to it by the Commission in relation to the Take-it-Up contract (No 245637) had been offset against the corresponding debt owed by META Group as shown by Debit Note No 32412078833;

— Note No 1380282 of 21 November 2012 concerning offsetting of the debt of EUR 16 772,36 which META Group claimed to be owed to it by the Commission in relation to the BCreative contract (No 245599) against the corresponding debt owed by META Group as shown by Debit Note No 32412078833;

— Note No 1380323 of 21 November 2012 concerning offsetting of the debt of EUR 16 772,36 which META Group claimed to be owed to it by the Commission in relation to the BCreative contract against the corresponding equivalent debt owed by META Group;

— Note No 1387638 of 22 November 2012 concerning offsetting of the debt of EUR 220 518,25 which META Group claimed to be owed to it by the Commission in relation to the Take-it-Up contract (No 245637) and the Ecolink+ contract (No 256224) against the debt of EUR 209 108,92 owed by META Group as shown by Debit Note No 32412078833;

and, accordingly, order the Commission to:

— pay the applicant the sum of EUR 424 787, plus default interest;

— pay compensation in respect of the consequential loss suffered by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in Case T-34/13.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/19

Action brought on 16 January 2013 — Senz Technologies/OHIM — Impliva (Umbrellas)

(Case T-23/13)

2013/C 101/42

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Senz Technologies BV (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: W. Hoyng and C. Zeri, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Impliva BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

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) (OHIM) dated 26 September 2012 in Case R 2459/2010-3;

— Uphold the arguments put forward before the General Court and declare the registration of the Registered Community Design with no. 000579032-0002 to be valid;

— Order the Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The trade design ‘Umbrellas’ — Registered Community design No 000579032-0002

Proprietor of the Community trade design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade design: Impliva BV

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application for a declaration of invalidity was based on Articles 4 and 9 Council Regulation No 6/2002

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Upheld the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1) and Articles 6 in connection with 25 (1)(b) of Council Regulation No 6/2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/22

Action brought on 4 February 2013 — Efag Trade Mark Company v OHIM (FICKEN LIQUORS)

(Case T-54/13)

2013/C 101/48

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Efag Trade Mark Company GmbH & Co. KG (Schemmerhofen, Germany) (represented by M. Wekwerth, 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 15 November 2012 in Case R 2544/2011-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘FICKEN LIQUORS’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 32, 33 and 35

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)(f) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/24

Action brought on 29 January 2013 — Roy v Council and Commission

(Case T-41/13)

2013/C 86/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: René Roy (Juillac-le-Coq, France) (represented by: C.-E. Gudin, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought

— Compensation in full for the loss suffered by reason of the fines, namely the sum of EUR 87 400;

— Compensation in full for his non-pecuniary loss, namely the sum of EUR 100 000;

— Order the Council and the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Cases T-195/11 Cahier and Others v Council and Commission (1) and T-458/11 Riche v Council and Commission. (2)

(1) OJ 2011 C 173, p. 14.

(2) OJ 2011 C 298, p. 28.