ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/33

Action brought on 20 November 2009 — European Commission v New Acoustic Music et Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir

(Case T-464/09)

2010/C 51/65

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, N. Bambara, Agents, assisted by C. Erkelens, lawyer)

Defendant: New Acoustic Music Association (Orpington, United Kingdom), Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir (Orpington)

Form of order sought

— order the defendants to repay to the Commission the amount of EUR 31,136.23 in principal, to be accrued with interests at 7,70 % per annum as of 14 January 2008 until the date of final payment;

— order the defendants to pay the procedural costs, including those incurred by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application is filed in relation to a grant agreement identified with the contract number 2003-1895/001-001, entered into between the European Commission (hereinafter ‘Commission’) and New Acoustic Music Association (hereinafter ‘NAMA’), represented by Ms Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir, with a view to carrying out the action entitled CLT2003/A1/GB-317 — European Music Roadwork in framework of the Programme ‘Culture 2000’ (1).

By means of its application, the applicant seeks an order from the Court requesting the defendants, each liable for the entire amount, one in the absence of the other, to repay to the Commission the sum of EUR 31,136.23, accrued with default interests, resulting from the difference between the sum paid in advance by the applicant to NAMA for the implementation of the actions provided for in the grant agreement and the sum which NAMA is entitled to.

In support of its application, the applicant raises a single plea in law. It submits that NAMA has allegedly breached its contractual obligations by failing to reimburse part of the advance payment made by the Commission since the actual eligible expenses were lower than the estimated total costs.

The Commission contends that both Acoustic and Ms Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir, in her capacity as partner and authorised legal representative of NAMA, are jointly liable for the sum due.

(1) Decision No 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 February 2000 establishing the Culture 2000 programme (OJ 2000 L 63, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/31

Action brought on 13 August 2010 — Morte Navarro v Parliament

(Case T-280/09)

()

2010/C 328/53

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: José Carlos Morte Navarro (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: J. González Buitrón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— annul the Decision of 5 May 2009, issue number 202660, of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, by which it closed Petition No 1818-08 submitted by Mr. Morte Navarro, give a fresh decision that declares admissible Petition No 1818-08 submitted by Mr. Morte Navarro to the European Parliament and examines that petition in accordance with the legally established procedure, and order the defendant to pay the costs;

— in the alternative, if the above claim does not succeed, annul the above-mentioned Decision of 5 May 2009, and

— order the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions to adopt a new decision that determines whether or not the petition submitted by Mr. Morte Navarro is admissible, and order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against the Decision of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions of 5 May 2009, by which it decided to take no further action on the petition submitted by the applicant on the ground that it clearly does not come within the jurisdiction of the European Union.

In his petition, the applicant requested that an investigation be initiated by the European Parliament with a view to the latter, pursuant to Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, asking the Council to declare the existence of a serious and persistent breach by the Spanish State of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, referred to in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges the lack of a proper statement of reasons in the contested decision, given that it sets out no arguments, other than the simple assertion that the issue raised clearly does not fall within the area of activity of the European Union, which would enable him to be informed of the reasons and grounds that have led the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions to take no further action on the petition.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/31

Action brought on 28 December 2009 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA)

(Case T-525/09)

2010/C 80/52

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Metronia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2009 in case R 1315/2006-1, as far as the appeal has been dismissed on the grounds that it does not comply with Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009); and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those incurred in the opposition and appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘METRONIA’, for goods and services in classes 9, 20, 28 and 41

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

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘METRO’, for goods and services in classes 9, 20, 28 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application;

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal, rejected the opposition and, as a result, allowed the Community trade mark application to proceed in respect of all goods and services

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/44

Action brought on 10 February 2010 — SP v Commission

(Case T-55/10)

2010/C 80/70

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: SP SpA in liquidazione (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission’s decision of 8 December 2009 amending the earlier decision — C(2009) 7492 final — adopted by the Commission on 30 September 2009;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By decision of 8 December 2009 (‘the contested decision’), the Commission amended its earlier decision — C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 — by which it had accused a number of companies, including the applicant, of participating in an alleged cartel. By the contested decision, the Commission acknowledged that the decision of 30 September 2009‘referred to an annex which set out tables illustrating the price movements for concrete reinforcing bars during the time when the cartel was in operation’ and that ‘that annex was not included in the decision adopted on 30 September 2009’, and decided to amend that decision in order to incorporate within it the tables annexed to the contested decision.

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

1. Illegality of the subsequent rectification of a measure vitiated by a grave defect: the Commission is not empowered to remedy after the event a decision which, being clearly incomplete at the time of adoption, is manifestly invalid; that constitutes a particularly grave circumstance which, as such, cannot be remedied.

2. Incorrect legal basis cited: the Commission cited as the legal basis for the contested measure Article 65 CS and Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (1) which are manifestly inappropriate as legal bases for pursuing the aim which the Commission had set itself (that is to say, for supplementing/amending one of its earlier decisions, the text of which had been incomplete). Accordingly, the second decision, which is contested in these proceedings, must be annulled because of the clear lack of an appropriate legal basis.

The applicant also alleges breach of the principle of sound administration.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/45

Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Alibaba Group v OHIM — allpay.net (ALIPAY)

(Case T-26/10)

2010/C 100/69

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alibaba Group Holding Limited (Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: allpay.net.Limited (Hereford, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 November 2009 in case R 1790/2008-1, as far as the appeal was dismissed; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALIPAY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42

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: Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘ALLPAY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 40 and 42; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the word mark ‘ALLPAY.NET’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 36, 38 and 42; United Kingdom trade mark registration of a series of word marks containing the word ‘ALLPAY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 40 and 42; unregistered earlier marks or signs containing the word ‘ALLPAY’, used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal partially

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/46

Action brought on 26 January 2010 — Hairdreams v OHIM — Bartmann (MAGIC LIGHT)

(Case T-34/10)

2010/C 100/71

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant:‘Hairdreams’ HaarhandelsgmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: G. Kresbach, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rüdiger Bartmann (Gladbeck, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Amend the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2009 in Case R 656/2008-4 so that the applicant’s appeal of 22 April 2008 is upheld in its entirety and that the defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings, the appeal and the present action;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer it back to OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Hairdreams HaarhandelsgmbH

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MAGIC LIGHT’ for goods in Classes 3, 8, 10, 21, 22, 26 and 44 (Application No 5 196 597)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Rüdiger Bartmann

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘MAGIC LIFE’ No 30 415 611 for goods in Class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) on the ground that the Board of Appeal erred in law in its assessment of the likelihood of confusion

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/60

Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-67/10)

2010/C 100/88

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 9827 final of 10 December 2009 on applying financial corrections on the EAGGF Guidance part of the operational programme CCI 2000.ES.16.1.PO.007 (Spain, Castilla y León) for the measure ‘Improving processing and marketing of agricultural products’, and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the view of the Kingdom of Spain the decision should be annulled on two grounds:

First, erroneous application of Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, (1) as the irregularities which provide the basis for the financial correction agreed by the Commission did not exist since the Spanish authorities carried out the appropriate controls systematically in order to meet the requirements for support laid down in Articles 26 and 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (2) and they did so prior to the granting of the support. In addition, contrary to what was stated by the Commission in the contested decision, the Control Plan adopted by the Spanish authorities following the inspection visit did not seek to remedy a posteriori the fact that controls were not carried out, but sought exclusively to check the efficiency of those controls.

Second, infringement of the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, in conjunction with the Guidelines on the principles, criteria and indicative scales to be applied by Commission departments in determining financial corrections under Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, (3) since the irregularities identified by the Commission, had they existed, which the Kingdom of Spain denies, would only justify the imposition of a financial correction proportionate to the harm which could have been caused to the Union’s funds and, therefore, less than the 5 % decided upon.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

(3) Document C(2001) 476 of 2 March 2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/66

Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Rütgers Germany and others v ECHA

(Case T-96/10)

2010/C 113/98

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Rütgers Germany GmbH (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany), Rütgers Belgium NV (Zelzate, Belgium), Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic), Koppers Denmark A/S (Nyborg, Denmark), Koppers UK Ltd (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— partially annul the contested act, as far as it relates to anthracene oil, anthracene paste;

— order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the partial annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (“ECHA”) (ED/68/2009) to identify anthracene oil, anthracene paste (CAS Number 90640-81-6) (“anthracene oil (paste)”) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57(d) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) (“REACH”), in accordance with Article 59 REACH.

On the basis of the contested decision, brought to the applicants’ attention by means of an ECHA’s press release, the anthracene oil (paste) was included in the list of 14 chemical substances of the Candidate List of Substance of Very High Concern (‘SVHC’) for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to the REACH. The reasons stated in the contested act for the identification of anthracene oil (paste) as a SVHC are that the substance is carcinogenic mutagenic and also persistent, and very bioaccumulative (‘vPvB’) in accordance with criteria set out in Annex XIII to the REACH.

The applicants consider that the contested act infringes the applicable rules established for the identification of SVHCs under the REACH and put forward four pleas in law in support of their application which are identical to those raised in Case T-94/10, Rütgers Germany and Others v ECHA.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/52

Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Intermark Srl v OHIM

(Case T-72/10)

2010/C 113/83

Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant(s): Intermark Srl (Stei, Romania) (represented by: Á.M. László, ügyvéd)

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

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Natex International Trade SpA (Pioltello, Italy)

Form of order sought

— Amendment of the decision of the defendant and dismissal in its entirety of the application for registration with regard to all goods;

— An order that the defendant bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Natex International Trade SpA

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘NATY’S’ for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32 (application for registration No 5 810 627)

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘Naty’ for goods and services in classes 30 and 35 (Community trade mark No 4 149 456)

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the application

Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) in that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/45

Action brought on 17 March 2010 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Vinotasia (VITASIA)

(Case T-124/10)

2010/C 134/74

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Schaeffer and A. Marx, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vinotasia GmbH (Koblenz, Germany)

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 14 January 2010 in Case R 1054/2008-4;

— reject Opposition No B 1 027 947, lodged on 30 June 2006, in so far as it was upheld by the decision of the Opposition Division of 30 March 2008;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

— in the alternative, stay the proceedings until a final decision is taken on the application for a declaration of invalidity, lodged on 17 March 2010 at the Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, against the earlier German mark No 302 15 015 ‘VINOSTASIA’

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘VITASIA’ for goods in classes 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 (Application No 4 691 101)

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘VINOTASIA’ No 302 15 015 for goods and services in classes 32, 33 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: To uphold the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: To dismiss the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) in that no likelihood of confusion between the abovementioned marks exists

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/40

Action brought on 30 March 2010 — Meda Pharma v OHIM — Nycomed (ALLERNIL)

(Case T-147/10)

2010/C 148/68

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Meda Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Homburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Nycomed GmbH (Konstanz, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 29 September 2009 in Case R 697/2007-4 concerning the opposition filed on the basis of German mark No 1 042 583‘ALLERGODIL’ against application No 4 066 452 for the Community trade mark ‘ALLERNIL’;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Nycomed GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ALLERNIL’ for goods in Class 5

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark No 1 042 583‘ALLERGODIL’ for goods in Class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the trade mark law principles of likelihood of confusion were not correctly applied

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 due to breach of the duty to give reasons

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).