ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/47

Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-563/13) (1)

((EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Belgium - Fruit and vegetables - Obligation to state reasons - Conditions for recognition of a producer organisation - Outsourcing of core activities by a producer organisation - Amount to be excluded - Proportionality))

(2016/C 038/61)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, assisted by F. Tuytschaever and M. Varga, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 219, p. 49), in so far as it concerns certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Belgium or, in any event, limitation of the amount which must be excluded from financing.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
1.

Annuls the following measures, in so far as they concern Good Luck Shipping LLC: — Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran; — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 on restrictive measures against Iran; — Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran; — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 on restrictive measures against Iran;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/31

Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Agriconsulting Europe v Commission

(Case T-570/13) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Operational technical assistance to set up and manage a network facility for the implementation of the European Innovation Partnership ‘Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability’ - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Abnormally low tender - Non-contractual liability))

(2016/C 098/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Agriconsulting Europe SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Sciaudone, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Capelletti and L. Di Paolo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for compensation for the harm suffered as a result of alleged irregularities on the part of the Commission in the tender procedure ‘Establishing a network facility for the implementation of the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) “Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability”’ (AGRI-2012-EIP-01).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders Agriconsulting Europe SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/22

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Ferraci v Commission

(Case T-219/13) (1)

((State aid - Municipal real estate tax - Exemption granted to non-commercial entities carrying out specific activities - Codified law on income tax - Exemption from the one-off municipal tax - Decision in part finding no State aid and in part declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Whether directly concerned - Admissibility - Absolute impossibility of recovering the aid - Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 392/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pietro Ferraci (San Cesareo, Italy) (represented initially by: A. Nucara and E. Gambaro, and subsequently by E. Gambaro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and D. Grespan, and subsequently by G. Conte, D. Grespan and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and G. De Bellis, acting as Agents

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2013/284/EU of 19 December 2012 on State aid SA.20829 (C 26/2010, ex NN 43/2010 (ex CP 71/2006)); Scheme concerning the municipal real estate tax exemption granted to real estate used by non-commercial entities for specific purposes implemented by Italy (JO 2013 L 166, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Pietro Ferracci to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs relating to its intervention.

(1) OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.
1.

Orders Thales développement et coopération SAS to repay to the European Commission the amounts paid to its legal predecessor in performance of Contract JOE3-CT-97-0063, under the fourth framework programme of European Community activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration (1994-1998), established by Decision No 1110/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 April 1994, set out below: — The amount of EUR 162 195,79, together with interest at the statutory rate laid down by French law, running from the date of payment of that amount until complete repayment thereof; — The amount of EUR 179 201, together with interest at the statutory rate laid down by French law, running from the date of payment of that amount until complete repayment thereof; — The amount of EUR 167 612,49, together with interest at the statutory rate laid down by French law, running from the date of payment of that amount until complete repayment thereof; — The amount of EUR 136 892,29, together with interest at the statutory rate laid down by French law, running from the date of payment of that amount until complete repayment thereof; — The amount of EUR 54 434,09, together with interest at the statutory rate laid down by French law, running from the date of payment of that amount until complete repayment thereof.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/23

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Mondelez UK Holdings & Services v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (Shape of a chocolate bar)

(Case T-112/13) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional mark - Shape of a chocolate bar - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 038/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd (Uxbridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Mitcheson QC, P. Walsh, J. Blum, and S. Dunstan, Solicitors, and D. Byrne, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented initially by G. Vos, M. Bakker and J. van den Berg, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Vos, S. Malynicz QC, T. Scourfield and T. Reid, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2012 (Case R 513/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cadbury Holdings and Société des produits Nestlé.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 December 2012 (Case R 513/2011-2);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd;

3. Orders Société des produits Nestlé SA to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/34

Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2015 — Melt Water v OHIM (Shape of a transparent cylindrical bottle)

(Case T-70/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a transparent cylindrical bottle - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 065/47)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Research and Production Company ‘Melt Water’ UAB (Klaipėda, Lithuania) (represented by: V. Viešūnaitė, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2013 (Case R 481/2013-5), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a transparent cylindrical bottle as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Research and Production Company ‘Melt Water’ UAB to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/12

Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — adidas v OHIM — Shoe Branding Europe (Two parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T-145/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community position mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe - Community and national figurative marks and earlier international registration representing three parallel stripes applied to shoes and clothing - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 221/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented initially by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers, and subsequently by I. Fowler, Solicitor)

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, intervening before the General Court: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by J. Løje, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2013 (Case R 1208/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adidas AG and Shoe Branding Europe BVBA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2013 (Case R 1208/2012-2);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by adidas AG;

3. Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/38

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (EXTRA)

(Case T-216/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark EXTRA - Mark comprised of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 198/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander and J. Eberhardt, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially M. Fischer, then A. Schifko, agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 February 2014 (Case R 1788/2013-1) relating to the application for registration of the word sign EXTRA as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/53

Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Roland SE v OHIM — Louboutin (Nuance of red on the sole of a shoe)

(Case T-631/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark consisting of a nuance of red on the sole of a shoe - Earlier international figurative mark my SHOES - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 302/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Christian Louboutin (Paris, France) (represented by: T. van Innis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 May 2014 (Case R 1591/2013-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Roland SE and Christian Louboutin.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Roland SE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/24

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb v OHIM — Yorma’s (Yorma Eberl)

(Case T-229/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Yorma Eberl - Earlier Community and national word marks NORMA - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 262/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Parr, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Yorma’s AG (Deggendorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Weiß and C. Muck, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2014 (Case R 532/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG and Yorma’s AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/30

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on a grey background)

(Case T-77/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on a grey background - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2013 (Case R 704/2013-1) relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing white dots on a grey background.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/35

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION)

(Case T-569/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/40)

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) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2014 (Case R 122/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/51

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Rintisch v OHIM — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)

(Case T-382/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark PROTICURD - Earlier national word marks PROTI and PROTIPLUS - Earlier national figurative mark Proti Power - Relative ground for refusal - Admissibility - Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 389/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, 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, intervener before the General Court: Compagnie laitière européenne SA (Condé-sur-Vire, France) (represented by C. Hertz-Eichenrode, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2014 (Case R 609/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Bernhard Rintisch and Compagnie laitière européenne SA

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 14 March 2014 (Case R 609/2011-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Bernhard Rintisch;

3. Orders Compagnie laitière européenne SA to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/54

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Dellmeier v OHIM — Dell (LEXDELL)

(Case T-641/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark LEXDELL - Earlier Community figurative mark DELL - Relative grounds for refusal - Detriment to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 389/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alexandra Dellmeier (Munich, Germany) (represented by: initially J. Khöber, and subsequently by H. Eckermann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Dell, Inc. (Round Rock, Texas, United States) (represented by: A. Renck and E. Nicolás Gómez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2014 (Case R 966/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Dell, Inc., and Ms Alexandra Dellmeier

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Alexandra Dellmeier to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/45

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Teughels v Commission

(Case T-131/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Proposal to add years of pensionable service - Act not having an adverse effect - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations))

(2015/C 398/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Catherine Teughels (Eppegem, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel and B. Braun, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Full Court) in Teughels v Commission (F-117/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:196), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 11 December 2013 in Teughels v Commission (F-117/11).

2. Dismisses the action brought by Catherine Teughels before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-117/11.

3. Orders Ms Teughels to bear her own costs on appeal and to pay those incurred by the European Commission on appeal, and orders the Commission to bear its own costs associated with the cross-appeal.

4. Orders Ms Teughels and the Commission each to bear their own costs at first instance.

(1) OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/51

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2015 — Promarc Technics v OHIM — PIS (Part of door)

(Case T-251/14) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing part of a door - Earlier international design consisting of an American patent - Ground of invalidity - No individual character - No different overall impression - Evidence that the earlier design was made available to the public - Circles specialised in the sector concerned - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Article 6, Article 7(1) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2015/C 398/64)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Promarc Technics s.c. Tomasz Pokrywa, Rafał Natorski (Zabierzów, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Petrycki i Sorys sp.j. (PIS) (Jasło, Poland) (represented by: D. Kulig, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 1464/2012-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Petrycki i Sorys sp.j. (PIS) and Promarc Technics s.c. Tomasz Pokrywa, Rafał Natorski.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Promarc Technics s.c. Tomasz Pokrywa, Rafał Natorski to pay the costs

(1) OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.