ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/25

Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — Unister v OHIM (Ab in den Urlaub)

(Case T-273/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Ab in den Urlaub - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absence of evidence of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 253/35

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Unister GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug and A. Kessler-Jensch, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 3 April 2012 (Case R 2150/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Ab in den Urlaub as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Unister GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2014 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)

(Case T-132/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark LAMBRETTA - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2014/C 395/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Scooters India Ltd (Lucknow, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Brandconcern BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Casucci and N. Ferretti, lawyers)

Re:

Action for annulment brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2012 (Case R 2308/2010-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Brandconcern BV and Scooters India Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 January 2012 (Case R 2308/2010-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Scooters India Ltd, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

3. Orders Brandconcern BV to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 372/15

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014 — Hansestadt Lübeck v Commission

(Case T-461/12) (1)

((State aid - Airport charges - Lübeck Airport - Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU - Article 107(1) TFEU - Manifest error of assessment - Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999))

2014/C 372/19

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hansestadt Lübeck (Germany) successor in title to Flughafen Lübeck GmbH (represented by: M. Núñez Müller, J. Dammann de Chapto and T. Becker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1012 final of 22 February 2012 on State aid No SA.27585 and No SA.31149 (2012/C) (ex NN/2012, ex CP 31/2009 and CP 162/2010) — Germany, in so far as that decision concerns the schedule of charges of Lübeck airport (Germany) adopted in 2006.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Annuls Commission Decision C(2012) 1012 final of 22 February 2012 on State aid No SA.27585 and No SA.31149 (2012/C) (ex NN/2012, ex CP 31/2009 and CP 162/2010) — Germany, in so far as that decision concerns the schedule relating to the airport charges for Lübeck airport adopted in 2006;

2) Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3) Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Hansestadt Lübeck.

(1) OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 448/18

Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — FIS'D v Commission

(Case T-283/12) (1)

((Erasmus Mundus action programme - Framework partnership agreement - Specific grant agreement - EACEA decision to rescind the framework agreement and amend the specific agreement - Administrative appeal before the Commission - Commission decision dismissing the administrative appeal as unfounded - Infringement of the agreements and the administrative and financial manual))

(2014/C 448/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: FIS’D — Formazione integrata superiore del design (Catanzaro, Italy) (represented by: initially, S. Bariatti and A. Sodano, then, F. Sutti and A. Boso Caretta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, M. Van Hoof, then, C. Cattabriga and D. Roussanov and finally, C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet, acting as Agent, M. Merola and C. Santacroce, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 12 April 2012 (ref. Ares (2012) 446225) dismissing the administrative appeal against the decision of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) of 13 January 2012 by which the latter rescinded early the framework partnership agreement 2011/0181 which it had concluded with the Università degli Studi Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria (Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria, Italy) and amended the specific grant agreement which it had concluded with that university

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FIS’D — Formazione integrata superiore del design to bear its own costs and those of the European Commission.

3. Orders the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/34

Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — A Colmeia do Minho (FAIRGLOBE)

(Case T-300/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark FAIRGLOBE - Earlier national word marks GLOBO - Relative ground for refusal - No proof of genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

2014/C 409/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter and A. Berger, 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: A Colmeia do Minho Ld a (Aldeia de Paio Pires, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2012 (Case R 1981/2010-2) concerning opposition proceedings between A Colmeia do Minho Ld a and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

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 2 April 2012 (Case R 1981/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between A Colmeia do Minho Ld a and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG, in that it found that genuine use of the earlier marks had been demonstrated to the requisite legal standard;

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Lidl Stiftung & Co.

(1) OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.
Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-109/12) (1)

(Cohesion Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Time-limit for adopting a decision)

(2015/C 073/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, abogado del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia, acting as Agent, assisted initially by J. Rivas Andrés and X. M. García García, and subsequently by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyers)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2011) 9992 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund granted to the following projects: ‘Measures to be undertaken to implement the 2nd phase of the master plan for urban solid waste management in the Autonomous Community of Extremadura’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PE.020); Outfall: ‘Middle basin, Getafe and lower basin of the Arroyo del Culebro (Tagus basin — Wastewater drainage)’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.002); ‘Re-use of treated water for the irrigation of green spaces in Santa Cruz de Tenerife’ (CCI No 2003.ES.16.C.PE.003) and ‘Technical assistance for the study and drafting of the project to supply water to the Mancomunidad de Algodor and to increase that supply’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.040).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C (2011) 9992 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund granted to the following projects: ‘Measures to be undertaken to implement the 2nd phase of the master plan for urban solid waste management in the Autonomous Community of Extremadura’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PE.020); Outfall: ‘Middle basin, Getafe and lower basin of the Arroyo del Culebro (Tagus basin — Wastewater drainage)’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.002); ‘Re-use of treated water for the irrigation of green spaces in Santa Cruz de Tenerife’ (CCI No 2003.ES.16.C.PE.003) and ‘Technical assistance for the study and drafting of the project to supply water to the Mancomunidad de Algodor and to increase that supply’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.040);

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.
Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL)

(Case T-374/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - International registration covering the European Community - Figurative mark KASTEEL - Earlier national word mark CASTEL BEER - Relative grounds for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

(2015/C 016/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck (Ingelmunster, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert, lawyer)

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, intervener before the General Court: Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: R. Dequiré-Portier, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2012 (Case R 2551/2010-2), in opposition proceedings between Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM and Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1) Dismisses the action;

(2) Orders Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck 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 Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM.

(1) OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/35

Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — IDT Biologika v Commission

(Case T-30/12) (1)

((Public supply contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply to Serbia of anti-rabies vaccines - Rejection of a tender - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Selection criteria - Manifest error of assessment))

(2015/C 146/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: IDT Biologika GmbH (Dessau-Roßlau, Germany) (represented by: initially R. Gross and T. Kroupa, then R. Gross and A. Mekdam, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 5 October 2011 (OJ 2011/S 222-359832) awarding the contract in the call for tenders EuropeAid/130686/C/SUP/RS for the supply of rabies vaccines for vaccination campaigns in Serbia to the consortium directed by the company Bioveta a.s. and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders IDT Biologika GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96/12

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Aer Lingus v Commission

(Case T-473/12) (1)

((State aid - Irish tax on air passengers - Lower rate for destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Selective nature - Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid - Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 096/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aer Lingus Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: K. Bacon, D. Scannell, D. Bailey, Barristers, and A. Burnside, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, A. Joyce and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Regan SC, and B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland (OJ 2013 L 119, p. 30).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland, in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid from the beneficiaries for an amount which is set at EUR 8 per passenger in recital 70 of that decision;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs, as well as half of the costs incurred by Aer Lingus Ltd;

4. Orders Aer Lingus to pay half of its own costs;

5. Orders Ireland to pay its own costs.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/14

Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2015 — Health Food Manufacturers’ Association and Others v Commission

(Case T-296/12) (1)

((Consumer protection - Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 - Health claims made on foods - Actions for annulment - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Whether directly concerned - Admissibility - Infringement of Articles 13 and 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Principle of good administration - Non-discrimination - Incorrect assessment criteria - Regulation No 1924/2006 - Plea of illegality - Right to be heard - Legal certainty - Unreasonable transition period - List of claims on hold))

(2015/C 245/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: The Health Food Manufacturers’ Association (East Molesey, United Kingdom); Quest Vitamins Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom); Natures Aid Ltd (Kirkham, United Kingdom); Natuur-& gezondheidsProducten Nederland (Ermelo, Netherlands); and New Care Supplements BV (Oisterwijk, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Kelly and G. Castle, Solicitors, and P. Bogaert, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and S. Grünheid, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicants: FederSalus (Rome, Italy); Medestea biotech SpA (Turin, Italy); and Naturando Srl (Osio Sotto, Italy) (represented by: E. Valenti and D. Letizia, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented: initially by D. Colas and S. Menez, and subsequently by D. Colas and S. Ghiandoni, acting as Agents); European Parliament (represented by: J. Rodrigues and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents); Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Šulce and M. Moore, acting as Agents); and Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2012 L 136, p. 1), and the alleged decision of the Commission adopting a list of ‘on-hold’ health claims.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders The Health Food Manufacturers’ Association, Quest Vitamins Ltd, Natures Aid Ltd, Natuur-& gezondheidsProducten Nederland and New Care Supplements BV to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission;

3) Orders the French Republic, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC), FederSalus, Medestea biotech SpA and Naturando Srl to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/26

Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Orly International (SPARITUAL)

(Case T-131/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the word mark SPARITUAL - Earlier Benelux figurative and word marks SPA and LES THERMES DE SPA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 205/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Spa Monopole compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and É. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Orly International, Inc. (Van Nuys, California, United States) (represented by: P. Kremer and J. Rotsch, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 9 January 2012 (Case R 2396/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and Orly International Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 9 January 2012 (Case R 2396/2010-1) of the First Board Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

2. Orders OHIM and Orly International, Inc. to each bear their costs and to pay the costs of Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV.

(1) OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/28

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — Corporación Empresarial de Materiales de Construcción v Commission

(Case T-250/12) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Sodium chlorate market in the EEA - Amending decision reducing the determined duration of participation in the cartel - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Whether time-barred - Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003))

(2015/C 398/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Corporación Empresarial de Materiales de Construcción, SA, formerly Uralita, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: K. Struckmann, lawyer, and G. Forwood, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. von Lingen, R. Sauer and J. Bourke, and subsequently by M. Sauer and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Article 1(2) and of Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2012) 1965 final of 27 March 2012 amending Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Corporación Empresarial de Materiales de Construcción, SA, to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/15

Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2015 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-503/12) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Single payment scheme - Key controls - Ancillary controls))

(2015/C 346/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by C. Murrell, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson and M. Holt, and finally by M. Holt, acting as Agents, and by D. Wyatt QC, and V. Wakefield, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Donnelly, P. Rossi and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2012/500/EU of 6 September 2012 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2012 L 244, p. 11), as regards four entries in the Annex to the decision relating to a 5 % flat-rate correction applied to expenditure incurred in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) in the financial years 2008, amounting to EUR 277 231,60 and EUR 13 671 588,90, and 2009, amounting to EUR 270 398,26 and EUR 15 844 193,29.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/25

Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Kühne + Nagel International and Others v European Commission

(Case T-254/12) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - International air freight forwarding services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final prices - Whether trade between Member States affected - Errors of assessment - Duration of the infringement - Amount of the fine - Point 13 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Mitigating circumstances - Proportionality - Rights of the defence))

(2016/C 136/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Kühne + Nagel International AG (Feusisberg, Switzerland), Kühne + Nagel Management AG (Feusisberg), Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Uxbridge, United Kingdom), Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Shanghai, China), and Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. Klöppner and C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Hödlmayr, N. von Lingen and G. Meessen, and subsequently by C. Hödlmayr, G. Meessen and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding), in so far as it concerns the applicants or, in the alternative, for variation of the fines imposed on them in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Uxbridge), Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Shanghai) and Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Hong Kong) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.