ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 339/22

Action brought on 18 July 2014 — Société des Produits Nestlé v OHIM — Terapia (ALETE)

(Case T-544/14)

2014/C 339/27

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Société des Produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and S. Cobet-Nüse, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Terapia SA (Cluj Napoca, Romania)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 in Case R 1128/2013-4 in such a way that the opposition is rejected;

— In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 in Case R 1128/2013-4;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Société des Produits Nestlé SA

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALETE’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 3 88 379

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Terapia SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘ALETA’ for goods and services in Classes 5 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

— Infringement of Article 63 in conjunction with Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation No 2868/95
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 329/22

Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Peri v OHIM (Multiprop)

(Case T-538/14)

2014/C 329/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peri GmbH (Weißenhorn, Germany) (represented by M. Eck and A. Bognár, lawyers)

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 29 April 2014 in Case R 1661/2013-1;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Multiprop’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 19 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 5 87 219

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)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/21

Action brought on 4 August 2014 — Giand v OHIM — Flamagas (FLAMINAIRE)

(Case T-583/14)

2014/C 351/27

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giand Srl (Rimini, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

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

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 June 2014 in Case R 2117/2011-4, finding that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks referred to below;

— Refer the case back to OHIM so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register Community Trade Mark No 8 6 80 746 in respect of all the goods covered, without prejudice to those which are uncontested;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs of proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Giand Srl

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘FLAMINAIRE’ for goods in Classes 16 and 34 — Community Trade Mark application No 8 6 80 746

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Flamagas, SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: national and international word marks for goods in Classes 16 and 34

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Breach of the principle of ne bis in idem;

— Incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/16

Appeal brought on 28 July 2014 by Victor Navarro against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 May 2014 in Case F-46/13 Navarro v Commission

(Case T-556/14 P)

2014/C 351/20

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Victor Navarro (Sterrebeek, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 May 2014 in Case F-46/13;

— Consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance and, accordingly: — Annul the decision of the European Commission, as the authority empowered to conclude contracts, of 4 October 2012, not to recruit the appellant as an auxiliary member of the contractual staff in function group II; — In so far as necessary, annul the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of 7 February 2013 rejecting the claim brought by the appellant on 19 October 2012; — Compensate his material losses; — Award him the sum fixed ex aequo et bono and provisionally at EUR 50 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered; — Order the defendant to pay all the costs, including those of the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the limits of the judicial review of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) since it substituted its own assessment for that of the administration.

2. Second plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the CST considered wrongly that, under Article 3(2) of Annex IV to the General Implementing Provisions of 2 March 2011 (1), professional experience must be properly circumstantiated and be related to one of the Commission’s areas of activity.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts of the case, since the CST stated, in the judgment under appeal, that the appellant had not supplied a description of the tasks carried out for Continental Airlines Inc. and, accordingly, had not proved that his experience was ‘appropriate’ to the carrying out of secretarial duties.

(1) General Provisions of 2 March 2011 for implementing Article 79(2) of the CEOS, governing the conditions of employment of contract staff employed by the Commission under the terms of Articles 3a and 3b of the said Conditions, published in Administrative Notices No 33-2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/11

Action brought on 5 June 2014 — Best-Lock (Europe) v OHIM — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure)

(Case T-398/14)

2014/C 361/14

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Best-Lock (Europe) (Colne, United Kingdom) (represented by: W. Krahl, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 April 2014 in Case R 1896/2013-4 and declare Community trade mark No 50 518 with respect to Class 28 to be revoked;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a toy figure for goods in Classes 9, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark No 50 518

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Lego Juris A/S

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection in part of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 51(1)(a) and 15(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/19

Action brought on 29 July 2014 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (ELITEDISPLAY)

(Case T-563/14)

2014/C 351/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (Dallas, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 1539/2013-2;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ELITEDISPLAY’ for goods and services in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 11 541 901

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/20

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Othman v Council

(Case T-601/14)

2014/C 361/30

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

— in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council (1).

(1) OJ C 290, p. 13.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/13

Action brought on 30 July 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO MIT PFLANZENFLUID AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG)

(Case T-570/14)

2014/C 361/17

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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 for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 May 2014 in case R 124/2014-4;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘BIO MIT PFLANZENFLUID AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 22 581

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 380/16

Action brought on 22 August 2014 — Roland v OHIM (Nuance of the colour red for shoe soles)

(Case T-631/14)

2014/C 380/21

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Roland SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken and O. Rauscher)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Christian Louboutin (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 May 2014 in Case R 1591/2013-1 to the extent that opposition No B 1 9 22 890 is fully upheld and Community trade mark application No 008845539 is rejected;

— in the alternative: annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Christian Louboutin

Community trade mark concerned: Other marks, which consist of a nuance of the colour red, which is applied to the sole of a shoe, for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 8845539

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Roland SE

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘my SHOES’, for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission applied Articles 25(2) and 89 of Regulation No 1198/2006 (1) wrongly. The applicant claims that the interpretation the Commission gave to Article 25, according to which support for investments is justified only if the relevant technical indicators of a vessel are improved by means of them, so that the improvement goes beyond restoring the original condition of the vessel, does not correspond to the wording, meaning or objectives of that article. The wording of Article 25(2) leaves a broad discretion as to what sort of investments may be supported within the framework of the EFF. Since the applicant complied with the provisions of Article 25(2), the application of Article 89 and the suspension of interim payments for supporting the first priority axis of the operational programme are also inappropriate.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 388/17

Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Novartis Europharm v Commission

(Case T-511/14)

2014/C 388/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Horsham, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; and

— order the European Commission to pay its own costs and those of Novartis.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 2155 final of 27 March 2014 granting a marketing authorisation to Teva Generics for the medicinal product for human use ‘Zoledronic acid Teva Generics — Zoledronic Acid’.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, essentially identical or similar to the plea in law relied on in Cases T-472/12 Novartis Europharm v Commission (1) and T-67/13 Novartis Europharm v Commission (2).

(1) OJ 2012 C 389, p. 8.

(2) OJ 2013 C 101, p. 24.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 388/21

Action brought on 8 September 2014 — Revolution v OHIM (REVOLUTION)

(Case T-654/14)

2014/C 388/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Revolution LLC (Washington, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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 11 June 2014 given in Case R 2143/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The work mark ‘REVOLUTION’ for services in Class 36 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 8 15 297

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application for CTM registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of the Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/55

Action brought on 22 September 2014 — Novomatic v OHIM — Simba Toys (African SIMBA)

(Case T-687/14)

2014/C 409/75

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 July 2014 in Case R 2098/2013-4 with the consequence that OHIM will have to reject the opposition in its entirety due to lack of similarity between the goods and/or signs or due to lack of a likelihood of confusion and allow Community trade mark application No 009752271 ‘African SIMBA’ to proceed to registration in accordance with the application;

— Order OHIM and, in the case of a written intervention, the opposing party, to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the appeal proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘African SIMBA’ for goods in Class 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 7 52 271

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: the national figurative mark including the word element ‘SIMBA’ and the international registration of the word mark ‘SIMBA’ for goods in Class 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009
—

This plea concerns the financial correction, amounting in total to EUR 2 362 005,73, imposed because the Italian State had not provided information on the recovery actions undertaken. The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission decided without reason that it was able to overrule a final judicial decision establishing that the aid had been legitimately allocated. Moreover, the Italian Government noted the delivery of a criminal court judgment absolving the aid recipient. Those facts showed that there was no reason for taking steps to recover that aid and, accordingly, that all the necessary information had been provided. In addition, that correction, which relates to the entirety of the aid, is significantly higher than any damage potentially resulting from the conduct imputed to the Italian authorities.
—

grant the applicants by a directly applicable Community measure, directive, regulation or other Community legislative act the ability to receive 100 % of the value of the bonds which were included in P.S.I. without their being asked and without their agreement;
1.

First plea in law, claiming that the Decision errs in law and fact because it finds that Marine Harvest should have notified its acquisition of a 48,5 % stake in Morpol in December 2012 (the ‘December 2012 Acquisition’) under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, and refrained from acquiring title to a 48,5 % shareholding in Morpol before receiving clearance of that element of the overall transaction, thereby rejecting the unitary nature of, and the applicability of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 to, the December 2012 Acquisition and the subsequent public offer mandated by the December 2012 Acquisition under Norwegian public takeover rules, and which Marine Harvest always intended to launch expeditiously so as to acquire full control of Morpol.
—

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 12 August 2014 by which the performance of the contract was awarded to another tenderer, and annul all the subsequent decisions relating to the conclusion of a contract for the performance of the contract, including the decision of the European Commission of 12 September 2014;
—

order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants in respect of the lost opportunity to be classified in first position for the three lots of the framework contract, which they estimate at eight hundred thousand euros (EUR 8 00 000) with respect to Lot 1, four hundred thousand euros (EUR 4 00 000) with respect to Lot 2 and two hundred thousand euros (EUR 2 00 000) with respect to Lot 3, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment, and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/33

Appeal brought on 16 September 2014 by Rhys Morgan against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 July 2014 in Case F-26/13, Morgan v OHIM

(Case T-683/14 P)

(2014/C 431/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Rhys Morgan (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 July 2014 in Case F-26/13;

— annul the Appraisal Report issued to the appellant in respect of the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011;

— order OHIM to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court — not below an amount EUR 500 — to the appellant for the moral and immaterial damages suffered by the appellant as a result of the aforesaid Appraisal Report;

— order OHIM to pay the costs as regards the proceedings in the Civil Service Tribunal and in the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in failing to recognize that a general assessment must be based on the official’s performance during the appraisal period as a whole.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in failing to recognize the gravity of the procedural violations committed by OHIM.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal committed an error when appreciating the plea in law alleging infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal committed errors when appreciating the plea in law alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment.