ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/20

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — H. P. Gauff Ingenieure v OHIM (Gauff JBG Ingenieure)

(Case T-585/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Gauff JBG Ingenieure - Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks GAUFF - Relative grounds for refusal - Partial refusal to register - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 262/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: H. P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: G. Schneider-Rothhaar, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Molnar, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 596/2013-1) relating to an application for restitutio in integrum.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

3. Orders Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/35

Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Bora Creations v OHIM — Beauté prestige international (essence)

(Case T-448/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark essence - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 236/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bora Creations, SL (Ceuta, Spain) (represented by: R. Lange, G. Hild and C. Pape, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Beauté prestige international (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 June 2013 (Case R 1085/2012-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Beauté prestige international and Bora Creations, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bora Creations, SL to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/45

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Dennekamp v Parliament

(Case T-115/13) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the affiliation of certain Members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Article 8(b) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Transfer of personal data - Conditions concerning the necessity of having the data transferred and the risk that the data subject’s legitimate interests might be prejudiced))

(2015/C 302/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gert-Jan Dennekamp (Giethoorn, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, T. Oeyen and E. Raedts, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and N. Görlitz, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by H. Leppo, acting as Agent); Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, S. Johannesson and U. Persson, and subsequently by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg, C. Hagerman and F. Sjövall, acting as Agents); and European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: A. Buchta and U. Kallenberger, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Decision A(2012) 13180 of the European Parliament of 11 December 2012 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents relating to the affiliation of certain Members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Decision A(2012) 13180 of the European Parliament of 11 December 2012 refusing to grant Mr Gert-Jan Dennekamp access to certain documents relating to the affiliation of certain Members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme in so far as access is thereby refused to the names of the 65 Members of the European Parliament who were applicants in the cases giving rise to the order of 15 December 2010 in Albertini and Others and Donnelly v Parliament (T-219/09 and T-326/09, ECR, EU:T:2010:519) and to the judgment of 18 October 2011 in Purvis v Parliament (T-439/09, ECR, EU:T:2011:600);

2. Annuls Decision A(2012) 13180 in so far as access is thereby refused to the names of Members participating in the additional pension scheme of the European Parliament who, as members of the Parliament’s plenary, actually took part in the votes on that additional pension scheme held on 24 April 2007, 22 April 2008 and 10 May 2012;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by Mr Dennekamp;

5. Orders Mr Dennekamp to bear one quarter of his own costs;

6. Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/33

Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2015 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (CAMOMILLA)

(Case T-100/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark CAMOMILLA - Earlier national figurative mark Camomilla - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Additional evidence brought before the Board of Appeal))

(2015/C 279/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia, R. Floridia, M. Franzoni and G. Rubino, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Camomilla SpA (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: A. Tornato and M. Mussi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2012 (case R 1616/2011-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between CMT — Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) and Camomilla SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) of 29 November 2012 (case R 1616/2011-1);

2. Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and those incurred by CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl).

3. Orders CAMOMILLA SpA to pay its own cost.

(1) OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/23

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — IOC-UK v Council

(Case T-428/13) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Right to property - Equal treatment and non-discrimination))

(2015/C 371/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iranian Oil Company UK Ltd (IOC-UK) (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, M. Gambardella, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer and V. Kaye, and subsequently by V. Kaye, acting as Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 10), and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Iranian Oil Company UK Ltd (IOC-UK) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/17

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Panasonic and MT Picture Display v Commission

(Case T-82/13) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production - Rights of the defence - Proof of participation in the cartel - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Proportionality - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2015/C 346/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Panasonic Corp. (Kadoma, Japan); and MT Picture Display Co. Ltd (Matsuocho, Japan) (represented by: R. Gerrits and A.-H. Bischke, lawyers, M. Hoskins QC, and S.K. Abram, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes), in so far as it concerns the applicants, or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets the amount of the fines imposed by Article 2(2)(f), (h) and (i) of Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes) at EUR 128 866 000, so far as concerns Panasonic Corp., for its direct participation in the infringement concerning the colour picture tubes for television sets market; at EUR 82 826 000, so far as concerns Panasonic, Toshiba Corp. and MT Picture Display Co. Ltd, jointly and severally, and at EUR 7 530 000, so far as concerns Panasonic and MT Picture Display, jointly and severally;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/33

Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Mocek, Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna v OHIM — Lacoste (KAJMAN)

(Case T-364/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark KAJMAN - Earlier Community figurative mark representing a crocodile - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Applications for annulment and alteration brought by the intervener - Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991))

(2015/C 389/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eugenia Mocek and Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna (Chojnice, Poland) (represented by: K. Grala and B. Szczepaniak, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lacoste SA (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Gaultier, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 May 2013 (Case R 2466/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Lacoste SA and Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the applications for annulment and alteration submitted by Lacoste SA;

3. Orders Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna to pay all the costs relating to the action and to bear its own costs relating to the applications of Lacoste SA for annulment and alteration;

4. Orders Lacoste SA to bear its own costs relating to its applications for annulment and alteration.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/28

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Cerafogli v ECB

(Case T-114/13) (1)

((Appeals - ECB Staff - Complaint of discrimination and psychological harassment - Decision of the ECB to close the administrative inquiry initiated following the complaint - Refusal of access to evidence during the administrative procedure - Rejection of a request for an order to produce evidence during the judicial proceedings - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of law))

(2015/C 389/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Rome, Italy) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. Feyerbacher, B. Ehlers, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 in Cerafogli v ECB (F-43/10, ECR, EU:F:2012:184), seeking the annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 in Cerafogli v ECB (F-43/10);

2. Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/21

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Government of Malaysia v OHIM — Vergamini (HALAL MALAYSIA)

(Case T-508/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark HALAL MALAYSIA - Earlier unregistered figurative mark HALAL MALAYSIA - Relative ground for refusal - Absence of rights to the earlier sign having been acquired in accordance with the law of the Member State before the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Use of the earlier mark as a label - Common-law action for passing off - Lack of goodwill))

(2016/C 007/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Government of Malaysia (represented by: initially R. Volterra, Solicitor, R. Miller, Barrister, V. von Bomhard and T. Heitmann, lawyers, then R. Volterra, R. Miller and V. von Bomhard)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Paola Vergamini (Castelnuovo di Garfagnana, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2013 (Case R 326/2012-1) relating to opposition proceedings between the Government of Malaysia and Ms Paola Vergamini.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Government of Malaysia to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/29

Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Enosi Mastichoparagogon v OHIM — Gaba International (ELMA)

(Case T-309/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark ELMA - Earlier Community word mark ELMEX - Refusal to register - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 406/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou (Chios, Greece) (represented by: A.-E. Malami, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Gaba International Holding GmbH (Therwil, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Schindler, M. Zintler and P. Nagel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2013 (Case R 1539/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Gaba International Holding GmbH and Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 2263, 3.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/33

Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — CN v Parliament

(Case T-343/13) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Petition addressed to the Parliament - Dissemination on the Parliament website of certain personal data - No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))

(2016/C 027/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CN (Brumath, France) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented initially by A. Buchta and V. Pozzato, then by A. Buchta, M. Pérez Asinari, F. Polverino, M. Guglielmetti and U. Kallenberger, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the dissemination on the Parliament website of certain personal data relating to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders CN to pay the costs of the European Parliament and to bear his own costs;

3. Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear his own costs.

(1) OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/28

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Commission v D’Agostino

(Case T-670/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Decision not to renew the contract - Duty of care - Infringement of Article 12a(2) of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of the file))

(2016/C 016/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Luigi D’Agostino (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 in Case F-93/12 D’Agostino v Commission (F-93/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:155), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 in D’Agostino v Commission (F-93/12) in so far the Civil Service Tribunal incorrectly applied the duty of care;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the main appeal;

3. Sets aside the judgment in D’Agostino v Commission in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal failed to adjudicate on the first part of the second ground of appeal and distorted it;

4. Dismisses the cross-appeal for the remainder;

5. Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

6. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/14

Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Gugler France v OHIM — Gugler (GUGLER)

(Case T-674/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark GUGLER - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Ground raised by the Court of its own motion))

(2016/C 090/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gugler France (Besançon, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, 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: Alexander Gugler (Maxdorf, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 October 2013 (Case R 356/2012-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Gugler France and Mr Alexander Gugler.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 October 2013 (Case R 356/2012-4);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Gugler France in the course of the proceedings before the Court.

(1) OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.