ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/17

Action brought on 31 March 2014 — PSL/OHIM — Consortium Ménager Parisien (Representation of a watch)

(Case T-212/14)

2014/C 245/23

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: PSL Ltd (Kowloon, Hong-Kong) (represented by: R. Dissmann and J. Bogatz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consortium Ménager Parisien (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 January 2014 in Case R 1495/2012-3;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the court as well as the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeals.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design representing a watch for goods in Class 10-02 — Community Design No 1 600 560-0001

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: Consortium Menager Parisien

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Lack of individual character within the meaning of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the contested design invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/30

Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics v OHIM Locura Digital (WOUXUN)

(Case T-345/14)

2014/C 235/41

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics Co. Ltd (Quanzhou, China) (represented by: A. Sebastião and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Locura Digital, SL (Granollers, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 February 2014 in Case R 407/2013-4;

— Order OHIM to refuse to grant registration of the Community trade mark No 1 0 0 72 478‘WOUXUN’ in full

— Order Locura Digital, SL to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Locura Digital, SL

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark WOUXUN for goods and services in Classes 9, 39 and 42 — Application for Community trade mark No 1 0 0 72 478

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics Co. Ltd

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word marks WOUXUN for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 38

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

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

annul Decision 2014/153, in so far as it extends until 22 March 2015 the restrictive measures directed against the applicant in Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/17

Action brought on 11 April 2014 — CBM Creative Brands Marken v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (Trecolore)

(Case T-227/14)

2014/C 245/24

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, M. Grundmann and N. Kerger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (Rome, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 January 2014 in Case R 253/2013-1 in so far as the First Board of Appeal annuls the decision of the Opposition Division and upholds the opposition against the application mark rejecting the application No 009 877 325 in regard of the goods in classes 18 and 25;

— Dismiss the opposition against Application No 009 877 325 in its entirety;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Trecolore’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 877 325

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The community and national word and figurative mark ‘FRECCE TRICOLORI’, for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 28 and 41

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/41

Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Comercializadora Eloro v OHIM — Zumex Group (zumex)

(Case T-354/14)

2014/C 253/55

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Comercializadora Eloro, SA (Ecatepec, Mexico) (represented by: J. L de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zumex Group, SA (Moncada, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— hold, on the basis of the documents filed in the administrative procedure and those submitted together with the present application, that the applicant has provided sufficient proof of use of its earlier mark ‘JUMEX’ for fruit juices in Class 32;

— refuse the registration of the mark applied for ‘ZUMEX’ for all goods in Class 32 on account of the opposing party, who is the applicant in the present proceedings, having proved use of the mark with priority, because of the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers arising from the coexistence in the market of both marks, given the similarity of the words and their identity in application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Zumex Group, SA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with word element ‘zumex’ for goods in Class 32 — Community trade mark application No 6 8 45 598

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘JUMEX’ for goods in Class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and opposition rejected

Pleas in law:

— Proof of use of the earlier mark;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/32

Action brought on 23 April 2014 — Giuntoli/OHIM — Société des produits Nestlé (CREMERIA TOSCANA)

(Case T-256/14)

2014/C 253/46

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Andrea Giuntoli (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

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 12 February 2014 given in Case R 886/2013-2;

— Order OHIM and those who oppose this request 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 containing the verbal elements ‘CREMERIA TOSCANA’ for goods and services in the Classes 30, 35 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 5 49 346

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Société des produits Nestlé SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘la Cremeria’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the appealed decision, accepted the opposition and partially rejected the CTM application.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/63

Action brought on 20 June 2014 — Arocasa v Commission

(Case T-461/14)

2014/C 253/85

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Arocasa, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; and

— order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-392/14 Gutser v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/35

Action brought on 26 May 2014 — HK Intertrade v Council

(Case T-372/14)

2014/C 261/60

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HK Intertrade Co. Ltd (Wanchai, Hong-Kong) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Council decision contained in the letter of 14 March 2014, addressed to the lawyers of the applicant, concerning review of the list of designated persons and entities in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as amended by Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012, and in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012, in so far as the contested decision constitutes a refusal to remove the applicant from the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures;

— join the present proceedings with the case T-159/13 in accordance with Article 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

— order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, alleging that the statement of grounds was insufficient and that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment.

The applicant argues that although it is a subsidiary of the listed company National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), the Council has not substantiated that this entails any economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the objective pursued by the contested measures. The applicant further submits that the Council has in fact never designated the applicant and that this error cannot be remedied by means of a corrigendum as the Council did.
1.

First ground of appeal: infringement of the rights of the defence, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that there had been a manifest error of assessment, even though it was aware that the appellant was not really in a position to do so and despite its refusal to compel the defendant at first instance to produce all the documents relevant for the purposes of determining whether that plea was well founded.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/43

Action brought on 16 June 2014 — TAO/AFI and SFIE v Parliament and Council

(Case T-456/14)

2014/C 261/69

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Association des Fonctionnaires Indépendants pour la Défense de la Fonction Publique Européenne/Association of Independent Officials for the Defence of the European Civil Service (TAO/AFI) (Brussels, Belgium) and Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens/Union of International and European Civil Servants (SFIE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the present action for annulment before it admissible;

— Annul the contested Regulations with all the attendant consequences in law;

— Order the defendants to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law alleging infringement of the prerogatives which they have as trade unions and professional associations, namely the right to consultation and the right of negotiation.

The applicants were not consulted either at the stage of preparation of the proposals or during the stage of the negotiations in respect of the disputed Regulations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/39

Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Coca-Cola v OHIM (Shape of a bottle)

(Case T-411/14)

2014/C 282/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, United States) (represented by: D. Stone and A. Dykes, Solicitors, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 given in Case R 540/2013-2;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional mark representing a shape of a bottle for goods in Classes 6, 21, 32 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 5 32 687

Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark not eligible for registration in respect of a part of the goods applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR .
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/52

Action brought on 30 June 2014 — La Perla v OHIM — Alva Management (LA PERLA)

(Case T-492/14)

2014/C 282/68

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: La Perla sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alva Management GmbH (Icking, 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 28 April 2014 given in Case R 626/2013-4;

— Order the defendant and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LA PERLA’ for goods and services in Classes 5 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 9 8 54 225

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘PERLAMAR’ registered as Community and national trade mark

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/47

Action brought on 6 June 2014 — Larko v Commission

(Case T-412/14)

2014/C 292/58

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: Ι. Drullerakes, Ε. Τriandafyllou, G. Psaroudakis, Ε. Randos, Ν. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— uphold this action in its entirety;·

— declare to be null and void the Commission Decision of 27/03/2014 [SG-Greffe (2014) D/4628/28/03/2014] in relation to the sale of certain assets of the applicant (No. SA.37954 (2013/N) and,

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicant relies on three pleas in law:

1. The first plea in law is based on the infringement by the Commission of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The applicant maintains that due to the failure first to hear the applicant it is evident that the adoption of the contested decision was vitiated by an infringement of an essential procedural requirement for its adoption.

2. The second plea in law is based on the infringement by the Commission of Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation (ΕC) No 659/99. (1) The applicant maintains that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that there was economic continuity between the applicant and the purchaser of its assets in the context of the ‘privatisation programme’.

3. The third plea in law is based on the infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU. The applicant maintains that the statement of reasons in the contested decision is insufficient as regards the lack of economic continuity, and particularly as regards (a) the scope of the assets which were sold, (b) the non-transfer of employment contracts and (c) the economic logic of the sale.

(1) Council Regulation (ΕC) No 659/1999 of 22 March1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/41

Action brought on 12 June 2014 — The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission

(Case T-419/14)

2014/C 282/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc (New York, United States of America) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J. Koponen and A. Mangiaracina, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Commission’s Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 — Power Cables, in so far as they concern the applicant; and/or

— Reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 2 of the Decision;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of 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 (1) in holding GS Group jointly and severally liable for the infringement allegedly committed by Prysmian.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Article 296 TFEU in that it fails to demonstrate to the requisite legal standard that GS Group actually exercised decisive influence over Prysmian over the relevant period.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, as it violates the principle of personal liability and the presumption of innocence.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 as it violates the principles of legal certainty and that the penalty must be specific to the offender, in that the Commission did not allocate the fine.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated the applicant’s rights of defence (breach of an essential procedural requirement), in that the Commission failed to give access to essential documents in due time.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the General Court afford GS Group the benefit of any reduction of the fine imposed by the contested decision which may be granted to Prysmian.

(1) OJ L 1, 04/01/2003, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/52

Action brought on 15 July 2014 — Information Resources v OHIM (Growth Delivered)

(Case T-528/14)

2014/C 303/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Information Resources, Inc. (Chicago, United States) (represented by: C. Schulte, 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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 May 2014 given in Case R 1777/2013-4;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Growth Delivered’ for services in Classes 35, 41 and 42

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.
—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2014 in Case R 2324/2013-1;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/66

Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)

(Case T-440/14)

2014/C 315/111

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Premo, SL (Málaga, Spain) (represented by: E. Cornu, F. de Visscher and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prema Semiconductor GmbH (Mainz, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 April 2014 in Case R 1719/2011-5;

— Subsidiarily, annul the contested decision to the extent that it upheld the opposition regarding ‘induction coils’, ‘inductive resisters’, ‘electric transformers’ and ‘antiparasitic transformers and filters’;

— Order the OHIM, and if appropriate the intervening party, to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PREMO’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 5 5 20 788

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘PREMA’ for goods in Class 9

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was partially dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Rule 22, 6o of Regulation 2868/95 and the rights of defence of the Applicant;

— Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009