ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/36

Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Elite Licensing (e)

(Case T-425/12)

2012/C 355/76

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: B. Gumpoldsberger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elite Licensing Company SA (Fribourg, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 June 2012 in Case R 881/2011-1 with which the opponent’s appeal was upheld and the registration of the Community trade mark applied for by the applicant in respect of Classes 9, 12, 18, 22, 25 and 28 was refused; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the letter ‘e’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 18, 22, 25, 28 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6 220 421

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Elite Licensing Company SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national, international and Community figurative mark including the letter ‘e’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 32, 35, 38, 41, 43 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/25

Action brought on 12 October 2012 — Zoo Sport v OHIM — K-2 (zoo sport)

(Case T-455/12)

2012/C 399/48

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Zoo Sport Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Rungg, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: K-2 Corp. (Seattle, United States)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Vary the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 August 2012 in case R 1395/2011-4, so as to reject the opposition in its entirety; and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white ‘zoo sport’, for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 8909293

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: Community trade mark registration No 5233119 for the word mark ‘ZOOT’, for goods in classes 9 and 25; Community trade mark registration No 4719316 for the figurative mark in black and white ‘SPORTS ZOOT SPORTS’, for goods and services in classes 25, 35, 36 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/54

Action brought on 9 November 2012 — Eckes-Granini v OHIM — Panini (PANINI)

(Case T-487/12)

2013/C 26/110

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH (Nieder-Olm, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Panini SpA (Modena, Italy)

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 6 September 2012 in case R 2393/2011-2; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘PANINI’, for goods in class 32 — Community trade mark application No 8721987

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 121780 of the word mark ‘GRANINI’, for inter alia goods in class 32; German trade mark registration No 30315871 of the word mark ‘GRANINI’ for inter alia goods in class 32

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/40

Action brought on 31 October 2012 — Giorgis v OHIM — Comigel (Shape of goblets)

(Case T-474/12)

2013/C 9/72

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Giorgis (Milan, Italy) (represented by: I. Prado and A. Tornato, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Comigel SAS (Saint- Julien-lès-Metz, France)

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 26 July 2012 in case R 1301/2011-1; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The three-dimensional mark representing a shape of goblets, for goods in class 30 — Community trade mark registration No 8132681

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The request for a declaration of invalidity was based on grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 7(1)(b) and (d) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested CTM invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
1.

First plea in law: in the contested decision the Commission misapplied Articles 107(1) TFEU and 345 TFEU and infringed substantive procedural requirements, for it assessed the facts incorrectly and gave defective and/or incorrect reasons for the decision at issue concerning the question whether a recapitalisation measure in 2008 can be attributed to the Republic of Slovenia. It is the applicant’s opinion that the Commission, contrary to Articles 107(1) TFEU and 345 TFEU, concluded that the conduct of the members of Elan on the latter’s recapitalisation in 2008 could be attributed to the Republic of Slovenia. The Commission’s conclusion was based on the fact that the State, as owner, appoints the supervisory council; the Commission thereby discriminates, in the applicant’s view, against the twofold system of management of public undertakings. The reasoning for the decision is deficient – that is to say, it wants relevant, adequate grounds – and incorrect, in that the Commission argues that there exist strong indications of the State’s being closely involved in the decision-making process of a company with share capital (Kapitalska družba, ‘KAD’) and of a consultancy and management company (Družba za svetovanje in upravljanje, DSU), that is to say, its arguments rest on no more than unreliable evidence and hear-say evidence. The contested decision is quite unsupported by reasons in respect too of the other members of Elan, against whom the Commission intends to level only an allegation of ‘parallel conduct’. In the applicant’s opinion, the factors mentioned by the Commission in the contested decision in no way amount to evidence that would, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice and the General Court, demonstrate the State authorities’ involvement in the adoption of the measure recapitalising Elan in 2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/58

Action brought on 16 November 2012 — European Drinks v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (DRACULA BITE)

(Case T-497/12)

2013/C 26/117

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: European Drinks SA (Ștei, Romania) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl (Pleasa, Romania)

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 6 September 2012 in case R 679/2011-4; and.

— Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘DRACULA BITE’, for goods and services in classes 33, 35 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 7588321

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Romanian trade mark registration No 34847 of the figurative mark ‘Dracula’, for goods and services in classes 33 and 35

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42(2) and 42(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/25

Action brought on 8 December 2012 — Still v OHIM (Fleet Data Services)

(Case T-534/12)

2013/C 32/39

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Still GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by S. Waller, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2012 in Case R 130/2012-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs;

— Join the case under Article 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court with the action brought in parallel against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case R 4/2012-1, also of 10 September 2012, regarding the Community trade mark application ‘Truck Data Services’, application No 009931429.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘Fleet Data Services’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 35, 36, 37 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 9 931 387

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 32/22

Action brought on 30 November 2012 — Alfa-Beta Vassilopoulos v OHIM — Henkel (AB terra Leaf)

(Case T-522/12)

2013/C 32/35

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alfa-Beta Vassilopoulos SA (Gerakas Attikis, Greece) (represented by: N. Lymperis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, 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 1 October 2012 in case R 2122/2011-4 and the appeal be upheld so that CTM application AB TERRA LEAF (& device) No 8573651 proceeds to registration for all goods applied for; and

— Order the defendant and the opponent to pay the costs of these proceedings, including those incurred in opposition and appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘AB terra Leaf’ in black and white, for goods in classes 3, 5 and 16 — Community trade mark application No 8573651

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: Community trade mark registration No 33472909 of the word mark ‘TERRA’, for goods in classes 3 and 21

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/23

Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Kaatsu International/OHIM (KAATSU)

(Case T-567/12)

2013/C 63/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kaatsu International Co. Ltd (Morningside Drive, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

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 contested decision of the Board;

— Order the defendant to pay to the Applicant the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KAATSU’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10, 16, 28, 41 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 10 179 547

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
—

In declaring that its undertaking was small, the applicant acted on the basis of the mistaken belief that that was the correct classification of the company’s size, but without culpability. According to the information contained, under ‘charges’, on the website of the national REACH helpdesk, the size of an undertaking is defined by the national Law on freedom of business activity. Under that law, when determining the size of an undertaking the shareholding structure is not material; instead, account must be taken of the number of workers employed and the net annual turnover, which the applicant did. The obligation to take account of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 when determining the size of an undertaking was not correctly communicated to the persons concerned. Nor did ECHA inform undertakings of the amount of the administrative charges which may be imposed for incorrect classification of an undertaking’s size, thereby infringing the principle of legal certainty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/19

Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Nissan Jidosha/OHIM (CVTC)

(Case T-572/12)

2013/C 79/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nissan Jidosha KK (Yokohama-shi, Japan) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister and D. Cañadas Arcas, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of appeal’s Decision of 6 September 2012, (Case R 2469/2011-1);

— Order that the Respondent pays the Appellant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘CVTC’ for goods in classes 7, 9 and 12

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected partially the CTM renewal

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Art 50 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/20

Action brought on 27 December 2012 — Coppenrath-Verlag v OHIM — Sembella (Rebella)

(Case T-551/12)

2013/C 55/35

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Coppenrath-Verlag GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: D. Pohl, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sembella GmbH (Timelkam, Austria)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 October 2012 in Case R 1681/2011-2;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Rebella’ for goods in Classes 20 and 24 — Community trade mark application No 8 498 735

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sembella GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘Sembella’ for goods in Classes 17, 20 and 22

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed and the application was accordingly rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/22

Action brought on 7 January 2013 — ADEAS v Commission

(Case T-7/13)

2013/C 79/40

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Association pour la Défense de l’Épargne et de l’Actionnariat des Salariés de France Télécom-Orange (Paris, France) (represented by: A.-L. Lefort des Ylouses and A.-S. Gay, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare admissible the ADEAS’s application;

— rule that the decision is annulled;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant is seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 9403 final of 20 December 2011, declaring compatible with the internal market, under certain conditions, the aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom concerning the reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom (State aid No C 25/2008 (ex NN 23/2008)). (1)

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law which are essentially similar or identical to those put forward in Case T-2/13 CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange v Commission.

(1) OJ 2012 L 279, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/26

Action brought on 25 January 2013 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM — Müller (VOODOO)

(Case T-50/13)

2013/C 86/43

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andreas Müller (Ulm, 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 14 November 2012 in Case R 474/2012-4;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘VOODOO’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark No 5 832 464

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Andreas Müller

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/27

Action brought on 22 January 2013 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)

(Case T-30/13)

2013/C 79/47

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Villiger Söhne GmbH (Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 November 2012 in Case R 731/2012-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 ‘LIBERTE american blend’ for goods in Class 34 — Community trade mark application No 7 481 252

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Villiger Söhne GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ and the figurative mark including the word elements ‘La LIBERTAD’ for goods in Classes 14 and 34

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was rejected

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

Third plea in law, alleging breaching the right of ‘access to the court’ that has also materialized by the non-acceptance by the Tribunal of the right of lodging a reply to the defendant’s defense –and this while the applicant/appellant has expressly requested the second exchange of pleadings. Non-granting this right (to lodge a reply) has deprived the appellant from the chance to make right the irregularity claimed by the Tribunal — and this at a time when the appellant could no longer lodge a new action that would comply with the legal requirements since the deadline to introduce an action had expired (article 78 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal).
—

Annul Article 2(2)(h) of the contested decision or alternatively annul Article 2(2)(h) in so far as Toshiba is held jointly and severally held liable or alternatively reduce the fine as the General Court finds appropriate;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the right to a fair hearing and to effective judicial protection, since the applicant was not heard during the procedure of adoption of the contested acts and because of the Council’s implied refusal to produce the evidence justifying the nature and scope of the penalty.