ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/23

Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Pangyrus v OHIM — RSVP Design (COLOURBLIND)

(Case T-257/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark COLOURBLIND - Word sign COLOURBLIND - Absolute ground for refusal - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 118/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pangyrus Ltd (York, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Clubb, Solicitor, and M. Lindsay QC)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: RSVP Design Ltd (Brookfield, United Kingdom) (represented initially by M. Blair, and subsequently by J. MacKenzie, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 March 2011 (Case R 751/2009-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Pangyrus Ltd and RSVP Design Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Pangyrus Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/29

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air Canada v Commission

(Case T-9/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Air Canada (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: S. Kim, H. Bignall, J. Pheasant and T. Capel, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë and N. von Lingen, subsequently by J. Bourke and S. Noë, and lastly by A. Dawes and H. Leupold, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Air Canada;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Air Canada.

(1) OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/20

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — ClientEarth and International Chemical Secretariat v ECHA

(Case T-245/11) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by ECHA - Documents deriving from a third party - Time-limit for response to an application for access - Refusal of access - Exception relating to protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process - Overriding public interest - Environmental information - Emissions into the environment))

(2015/C 371/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) and The International Chemical Secretariat (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, A. Iber and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents, and by D. Abrahams, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by E. Manhaeve, P. Oliver and C. ten Dam, and subsequently by E. Manhaeve, P. Oliver and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, and latterly by E. Manhaeve, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and J. Tomkim, acting as Agents); and European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Y. van Gerven and M. Bronckers, lawyers)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the ECHA decision of 4 March 2011 refusing access to information supplied in the context of the procedure for registration of certain chemical substances.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action for annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 4 March 2011, in so far as it refused to disclose information requested by point 1 of the request for information, to the extent that point 1 concerns the names and contact details of 6 611 companies which were accessible over the Internet on 23 April 2014;

2. Annuls the ECHA decision of 4 March 2011 in so far as it refused to disclose information requested by point 1 of the request for information, to the extent that point 1 concerns information not yet disclosed on 23 April 2014;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders each party, including the European Commission and the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.
Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Axa Mediterranean v Commission

(Case T-405/11) (1)

((State aid - Provisions concerning corporate tax allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which are tax resident abroad - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification of the difference in treatment - Undertakings benefiting from the measure - Legitimate expectations))

(2019/C 25/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Axa Mediterranean Holding, SA (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) (represented by: initially, J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, and, subsequently, J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro and R. Calvo Salinero, and, finally, J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Article 1(1) and Article 4 of Commission Decision 2011/282/EU of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions No C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 135, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Axa Mediterranean Holding, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/29

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — GFKL Financial Services v Commission

(Case T-620/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning loss carry-forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Concept of State aid - Selectivity - Nature and general scheme of the tax system - State resources - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations))

(2016/C 106/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GFKL Financial Services AG (Essen, Germany) (represented initially by M. Schweda, S. Schultes-Schnitzlein, J. Eggers and M. Knebelsberger, and subsequently by M. Schweda, J. Eggers, M. Knebelsberger and F. Loose, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by T. Maxian Rusche, M. Adam and R. Lyal, and subsequently by T. Maxian Rusche, R. Lyal and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Rejects the objection of inadmissibility;

2. Dismisses the action as unfounded;

3. Orders GFKL Financial Services AG to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the European Commission’s costs, and orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

4. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/44

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2012 — Fomanu v OHIM (Qualität hat Zukunft)

(Case T-22/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Qualität hat Zukunft - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 26/84

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Fomanu AG (Neustadt an der Waldnaab, Germany) (represented by: T. Raible, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 October 2011 (Case R 1518/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Qualität hat Zukunft as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Fomanu AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/77

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — MOL v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (MOL Blue Card)

(Case T-367/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark MOL Blue Card - Earlier Community word marks BLUE, BLUE BBVA and TARJETA BLUE BBVA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/172

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: K. Szamosi, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: F. Mattina, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda Sousa and N. González-Alberto Rodríguez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 May 2012 (Case R 2532/2011-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA and MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/21

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Oro Clean Chemie v OHIM (PROSEPT)

(Case T-284/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PROSEPT - Earlier national word mark Pursept - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rights of defence - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2013/C 336/41

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Oro Clean Chemie AG (Fehraltorf, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Ekey, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Hirsch and C. Mayerhöffer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2012 (Case R 1053/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA and Oro Clean Chemie AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Oro Clean Chemie AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 233/9

Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2013 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

(Case T-301/12) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Application for authorisation to market the medicinal product Orphacol - Commission decision refusing to grant authorisation - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Directive 2001/83/EC - Well-established medicinal use - Exceptional circumstances)

2013/C 233/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Barnden, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, M. Šimerdová and L. Banciella, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents); Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen and C. Thorning, acting as Agents); French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, F. Gloaguen and S. Menez, acting as Agents); Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and A. Posch, acting as Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agent, and subsequently by C. Murrel, and finally by L. Christie, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, and subsequently by B. Majczyna, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 3306 final of 25 May 2012 refusing a marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Orphacol — Cholic acid’, an orphan medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 3306 final of 25 May 2012 refusing a marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Orphacol — Cholic acid’, an orphan medicinal product for human use;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by Laboratoires CTRS;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 15/15

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Vitaminaqua v OHIM — Energy Brands (vitaminaqua)

(Case T-410/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark vitaminaqua - Earlier national word marks VITAMINWATER - Earlier Community figurative mark GLACEAU vitamin water - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 15/20

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Vitaminaqua Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Krajnyák, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Németh and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Energy Brands, Inc. (Whitestone, United States of America) (represented by: S. Malynicz, D. Stone and L. Ritchie, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 997/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Energy Brands Inc. and Vitaminaqua Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vitaminaqua Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 359/10

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2013 — SFC Jardibric v OHIM — Aqua Center Europa (AQUA FLOW)

(Case T-417/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark AQUA FLOW - Earlier national figurative mark VAQUA FLOW - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Declaration of invalidity - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2013/C 359/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SFC Jardibric (Saint-Jean-de-la-Ruelle, France) (represented by: J.-L. Fourgoux, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Aqua Center Europa, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M.J. Martín Izquierdo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 July 2012 (Case R 2230/2010-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Aqua Center Europa, SA and SFC Jardibric.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders SFC Jardibric to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 373, 1.12.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/36

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Steiff v OHIM (Fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy)

(Case T-434/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)

2014/C 52/67

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Margarete Steiff GmbH (Giengen an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by: D. Fissl, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2012 (Case R 1692/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of a fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Margarete Steiff GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.
1.

Orders the European Commission to pay to ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias the sums of which the payment was suspended on the basis of the third indent of point II.28(8) of the general conditions annexed to the contract relating to the Persona project, concluded in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration, contributing to the creation of a European Research and Innovation Area (2002-2006), without such payment prejudicing the eligibility of the expenses declared by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias or the implementation of the findings of final audit report 11-BA134-011 by the Commission. The amount of the sums to be paid shall be inside the limits of the balance of the financial aid available at the time of the suspension of the payments and those sums must be increased by late-payment interest which shall start to run, in respect of each period, on expiry of the 45-day time-limit for payment following approval of the corresponding reports by the Commission and, at the latest, 90 days from their receipt by the Commission. The interest rate applicable shall be that in force on the first day of the month in which the payment fell due, as published in the Official Journal of the European Union, Series C;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/36

Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Nanso Group (TEEN VOGUE)

(Case T-509/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark TEEN VOGUE - Earlier national word mark VOGUE - Admissibility - Formulation of the form of order sought - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identity or similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Partial refusal to register))

2014/C 102/56

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, New York, United States of America) (represented by C. Aikens, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by V. Melgar, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nanso Group Oy (Nokia, Finland) (represented by M. Tuominen, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2012 (case R 147/2011-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Nanso Group Oy and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc., to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — European Dynamics Belgium and Others v EMA

(Case T-158/12) (1)

(Public service contracts - Community tender procedure - External service provision for software applications - Decision to classify the applicant’s tender in second place for the purposes of a cascading contract - Award criteria - Addition of award criterion not provided for by the contract documents - Assessment of a selection criterion at the award stage - Transparency)

(2014/C 71/30)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium); European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbruck, Luxembourg); Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece); and European Dynamics UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński and C. Maignen, acting as Agents, assisted initially by H. G. Kamann and E. Arsenidou, and subsequently by H. G. Kamann et A. Dritsa, lawyers)

Re:

Application (i) for annulment of European Medicines Agency decision EMA/67882/2012 of 31 January 2012 to classify the applicants’ tender in second place for signing a framework-contract, following the call for tender EMA/2011/17/ICT on the external service provision for software applications, and (ii) for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai and European Dynamics UK Ltd shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.