ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/9

Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Formula One Licensing BV v OHIM — Idea Marketing (F1H2O)

(Case T-55/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark F1H2O - Community, international, Benelux and national word and figurative marks with the element ‘F1’ - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier trade marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 221/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Formula One Licensing BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented initially by B. Klingberg and subsequently by K. Sandberg, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Idea Marketing SA (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by B. Brisset and O. Vanner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2012 (Case R 1247/2011-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Formula One Licensing BV and Idea Marketing SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Formula One Licensing BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Idea Marketing SA.

(1) OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/27

Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Skype v OHIM — Sky and Sky IP International (SKYPE)

(Case T-183/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SKYPE - Earlier Community word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 205/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Skype Ultd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented: initially by I. Fowler, Solicitor, J. Schmitt, lawyer, and J. Mellor QC, and subsequently by A. Carboni and M. Browne, Solicitors)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sky plc, formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom); and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth) (represented by: R. Guthrie, D. Rose, V. Baxter, Solicitors, and T. Moody-Stuart, Barrister, and subsequently by R. Guthrie, D. Rose, Solicitors, T. Moody-Stuart, Barrister, and J. Curry, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2013 (Case R 2398/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between, on the one side, British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Sky IP International Ltd and, on the other, Skype Ultd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Skype Ultd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky plc and Sky IP International Ltd.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/22

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Diseños Mireia (M)

(Case T-662/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark M - Earlier Community word mark dm - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 262/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 911/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and Diseños Mireia, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/36

Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Giovanni Cosmetics v OHIM — Vasconcelos & Gonçalves (GIOVANNI GALLI)

(Case T-559/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark GIOVANNI GALLI - Earlier Community word mark GIOVANNI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctive character of a first name and a surname))

(2015/C 236/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giovanni Cosmetics, Inc. (Rancho Dominguez, California, United States) (represented by: J. van den Berg and M. Meddens-Bakker, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vasconcelos & Gonçalves, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 August 2013 (Case R 1189/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Giovanni Cosmetics, Inc. and Vasconcelos & Gonçalves, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Giovanni Cosmetics, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/25

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2015 — Gold Crest v OHIM (MIGHTY BRIGHT)

(Case T-714/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark MIGHTY BRIGHT - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 346/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gold Crest LLC (Goleta, United States) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 2038/2012-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MIGHTY BRIGHT as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gold Crest LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(1) OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/34

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2015 — Axa Versicherung v Commission

(Case T-677/13) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure pursuant to the competition rules - Request relating to a collection of documents - Refusal to grant access - Request relating to a single document - Table of contents - Obligation to undertake a concrete, individual examination - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Overriding public interest - Claim for damages - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 279/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Axa Versicherung AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Bahr, S. Dethof and A. Malec, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Krämer, acting as Agents, and by R. Van der Hout and A. Köhler, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Aix-la-Chapelle, Germany) (represented by: B. Meyring and E. Venot, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/817 and 2012/3021 Gestdem of 29 October 2013, rejecting two requests for access to documents in the file of Case COMP/39.125 (Car glass).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2012/817 and 2012/3021 Gestdem of 29 October 2013, rejecting two requests for access to documents in the file of Case COMP/39.125 (Car glass) in so far as it refuses to grant Axa Versicherung AG access to the ‘leniency documents’ included in the table of contents of that file;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders Axa Versicherung and the European Commission to each bear their own costs;

4. Orders Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/23

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Wahlström v Frontex

(Case T-653/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Reports procedure - Career development report - 2010 assessment period - Annual dialogue with the reporting officer - Setting objectives))

(2015/C 371/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Kari Wahlström (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (represented by: S. Vuorensola and H. Caniard, acting as Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 9 October 2013 in Wahlström v Frontex (F-116/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:143), and seeking that that judgment be set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2013 in Wahlström v Frontex (F-116/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:143) to the extent that the Civil Service Tribunal rejected the second and third parts of the second ground for annulment relied on at first instance and the claim for compensation;

2. Dismisses the appeal for the remainder;

3. Annuls the assessment report for the year 2010 of Mr Kari Wahlström;

4. Orders the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) to pay EUR 2 000 to Mr Wahlström by way of compensation;

5. Orders Frontex to bear the entirety of the costs both at first instance and of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

(1) OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/31

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia v OHIM — Hautrive (COLOMBIANO HOUSE)

(Case T-387/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark COLOMBIANO HOUSE - Earlier protected geographical indication Café de Colombia - Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 363/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia (Bogota, Colombia) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Bertoli and Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nadine Hélène Jeanne Hautrive (Chatou, France) (represented by: J. Beaumont, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 May 2013 (Case R 757/2012-5) relating to opposition proceedings between the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia and Nadine Hélène Jeanne Hautrive.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 May 2013 (Case R 757/2012-5);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia;

3. Orders Ms Nadine Hélène Jeanne Hautrive to bear her own costs.

(1) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/38

Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a smiley with heart-shaped eyes)

(Case T-656/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a smiley with heart-shaped eyes - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 398/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Freitag and C. Albrecht, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 997/2013-4) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a smiley with heart-shaped eyes.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders The Smiley Company SPRL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/37

Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2015 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling)

(Case T-624/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Figurative mark Darjeeling - Earlier Community collective word and figurative marks DARJEELING - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 389/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France) (represented by: G. Marchais and P. Martini-Berthon, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2013 (Case R 1504/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between The Tea Board and Delta Lingerie.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 September 2013 (Case R 1504/2012-2) as regards the goods in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘[r]etailing of women’s underwear and lingerie, perfumes, toilet water and cosmetic lotions, household and bath linen’ services in Class 35 of that agreement covered by the mark applied for;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/18

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Orthogen v OHIM — Arthrex (IRAP)

(Case T-253/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark IRAP - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 007/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Orthogen AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Finger and S. Krüger, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by D. Walicka and A. Schifko, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Arthrex GmbH (Garching, Germany) (represented by: R. Greiffenberg and O. Stöckel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2013 (Case R 382/2012-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Arthrex GmbH and Orthogen AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Orthogen AG to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and by Arthrex GmbH.

(1) OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/29

Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2015 — Petco Animal Supplies Stores v OHIM — Gutiérrez Ariza (PETCO)

(Case T-664/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark PETCO - Earlier Community figurative mark PETCO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Plea which does not support the form of order sought - Prohibition on ruling ultra petita - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 406/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Domingo Gutiérrez Ariza (Málaga, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2013 (Case R 347/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Domingo Gutiérrez Ariza and Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/40

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Kenzo v OHIM — Tsujimoto (KENZO ESTATE)

(Case T-528/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark KENZO ESTATE - Earlier Community word mark KENZO - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Partial rejection of the opposition))

(2016/C 027/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kenzo (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, W. von der Osten-Sacken and M. Ring, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 July 2013 (Case R 1363/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Kenzo and Mr K. Tsujimoto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 July 2013 (Case R 1363/2012-2) in so far as it rejected the opposition in respect of the goods in Classes 29 to 31 covered by the international registration applied for;

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Kenzo in the course of the present proceedings;

3. Orders OHIM and Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto to bear the costs which each of them has respectively incurred in the course of the present proceedings;

4. Orders Mr K. Tsujimoto to bear his costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Kenzo for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

(1) OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/35

Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Giant (China) v Council

(Case T-425/13) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of bicycles originating in China - Interim review - Article 9(5) and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Individual treatment - Non-cooperation - Necessary information - Facts available - Related companies - Circumvention))

(2016/C 027/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giant (China) Co. Ltd (Kunshan, China) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents) and European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 17).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 so far as it concerns Giant (China) Co. Ltd;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of Giant (China) and to bear its own costs;

3. Orders the European Commission and the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/13

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-443/13) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Right to respect for private life - Proportionality))

(2016/C 090/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mohammad Makhlouf (Damas, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14) in so far as that act concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Mohammad Makhlouf to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.