ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/53

Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Atlantic Multipower Germany v OHIM — Nutrichem Diät + Pharma (NOxtreme)

(Case T-186/14)

2014/C 142/68

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Atlantic Multipower Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nutrichem Diät + Pharma GmbH (Roth, 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 29 January 2014 in Case R 764/2013-4;

— Annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 12 April 2013 (filing No: 6333C);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘NOxtreme’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark No 10 177 889

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Nutrichem Diät + Pharma GmbH

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the national and Community figurative marks, including the word element ‘X-TREME’, for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 32

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 57(2) and (3) in conjunction with Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/31

Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Lubrizol France v Council

(Case T-191/14)

2014/C 151/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lubrizol France SAS (Rouen, France) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor and B. Hartnett, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare the appeal admissible;

— Annul Articles 1 and 4 of the Council Regulation (EU) 1387/2013 (1) of 17th December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Council Regulation (EU) 1344/20111 to the extent that it deprived the applicant of its rights to the entitlement of the benefit of three duty suspensions under former TARIC Codes 2918.2900.80, 3811.2900.10 and 3811.9000.30 on the grounds that it contains manifest errors in law and substance and was also adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements and safeguards;

— Order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors in law and substance when determining that the applicable conditions were satisfied for terminating the three autonomous duty suspensions by failing to properly apply the test for establishing the existence of sufficient quantities of similar or substitutable quantities of products made in the European Union as well as the criterion of identical, equivalent or substitute products.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that that the defendant breached essential procedural requirements and safeguards put in place to ensure that the procedural rules, requiring opposing companies to reply within due time and also to prevent misleading and inaccurate information being provided in objections to the continuation of autonomous duty suspension, are properly applied and implemented.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013 of 17 December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 201)
1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment committed by the Commission in the determination of the method of calculating the values of sales, in so far as the values adopted in the contested decision on the basis of that method do not reflect the respective positions of the banks against which the action has been brought on the relevant market during the infringement period (first part). The applicant submits that the Commission has thereby infringed its duty of diligence (second part) and has infringed the principles of equal treatment (third part) and of the protection of legitimate expectations (fourth part).
1.

First ground based on a claimed infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and Article 26(1) and (4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, a disregard of acquired rights and infringement of the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity, and a failure to state reasons. The appellant claims that: — the Civil Service Tribunal gave retroactive effect to the general implementing provisions adopted in 2011 relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations on the transfer of pension rights by deciding that, in order to determine the number of years of pensionable service corresponding, under the Community pension scheme, to the actuarial equivalent of the appellant’s pension rights under the Belgian pension scheme, the appointing authority could properly apply the 2011 general implementing provisions on the ground that at the date when those provisions entered into force, the appellant was not in a situation which was ‘fully constituted’ under the 2004 general implementing provisions, since she had not accepted the proposed calculation which had prior to that date been communicated to her, notwithstanding that the application for transfer of pension rights had been made in November 2009, that the appellant’s rights had therefore definitively crystallised on that date and that they had consequently to be determined by applying the 2004 general implementing provisions; — the Civil Service Tribunal did not provide any legal basis for its analysis and did not explain on what ground the Staff Regulations provisions relied on by the appellant in her application at first instance and the principles enshrined therein should be disregarded in this case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/29

Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Nürburgring v OHIM — Biedermann (Nordschleife)

(Case T-181/14)

2014/C 151/37

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Nürburgring GmbH (Nürburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues and C. Giersdorf, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lutz Biedermann (Villingen-Schwenningen, 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 20 January 2014 in Case R 163/2013-4;

— order the defendant and, if applicable, the other interested parties to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Nordschleife’ for goods and services in Classes 2 to 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24 to 30, 32 to 34, 39, 41 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 7 379 399

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lutz Biedermann

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘Management by Nordschleife’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 9, 16, 25, 28 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/35

Action brought on 9 April 2014 — Ewald Dörken v OHIM — Schürmann (VENT ROLL)

(Case T-223/14)

2014/C 184/57

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ewald Dörken AG (Herdecke, Germany) (represented by: N. Grüger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wolfram Schürmann (Neuhausen, Switzerland)

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 30 January 2014 in Case R 2156/2012-4 and alter the contested decision to the effect that the application for a declaration of invalidity is dismissed in its entirety;

— In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 January 2014 in Case R 2156/2012-4 with regard to the goods in Class 6: ‘metal sheets for construction purposes’ and Class [1]7: ‘underlay sheets’ and alter the contested decision to the effect that the application for a declaration of invalidity is dismissed with regard to those goods;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘VENT ROLL’ for goods in Classes 6, 17 and 19 — Community trade mark No 3 817 491

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Wolfram Schürmann

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, bad faith under Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and relative ground for invalidity of a mark registered by an agent without the proprietor’s consent pursuant to Article 53(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 52(1) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 52(1) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 40(3) of Regulation No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Articles 76 and 78 of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rules 37(b)(iv) and 57 of Regulation No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 37(a)(iii) of Regulation No 2868/95 in conjunction with Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/46

Action brought on brought on 7 March 2014 — ANKO v Commission.

(Case T-155/14)

2014/C 175/64

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Declare that the entire amount of EUR 325 823,16 which the Commission seeks to recover as constituting ineligible costs and which it has already paid to the applicant in respect of the PERSONA project and the entire amount of EUR 280 747,45 which the Commission seeks to recover as constituting ineligible costs and which it has already paid in respect of the TERREGOV project constitute eligible costs;

— Declare that the amount of EUR 6 752,74 constitutes eligible costs incurred by ΑΝΚΟ in the context of the PERSONA project and, consequently that the Commission is under an obligation to make payment to ΑΝΚΟ;·

— Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action concerns the liability of the Commission under the contracts (a) 045 459 and (b) 507 749 for the performance of the (a) PERSONA and (b) TERREGOV projects respectively, under Article 272 TFEU.

In particular, the applicant maintains that, although it complied with its contractual obligations, the Commission, in breach of the abovementioned contracts, the principle of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights and the principle of proportionality, sought the recovery of sums paid to ΑΝΚΟ as not being eligible costs. For that reason, the applicant maintains, first, that the rejection of the eligibility of almost all the sums which the Commission paid in respect of the PERSONA and TERREGOV projects and the attempt to recover those sums as improperly paid is contrary to the Commission’s contractual obligations to ΑΝΚΟ. Second, the applicant maintains that the attempt to recover the whole of those amounts is disproportionate and abusive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/24

Action brought on 28 March 2014 — Aluwerk Hettstedt v ECHA

(Case T-207/14)

2014/C 202/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aluwerk Hettstedt GmbH (Hettstedt, Germany) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and J. Schrotz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare the decision No SME(2013) 4525 of 21 January 2014 of the European Chemicals Agency as well as invoice No 10046841 of 23 January 2014 to be void; and

— Order the defendant to bear all costs including the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging the defendant’s lack of competence — The defendant has not been competent to adopt the contested decision SME(2013) 4525. Neither Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (1) nor Regulation (EC) 340/2008 (2) entitles the defendant to issue a separate decision as to whether a registrant complies with the SME criteria.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the violation of Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 — In its entire communication with the applicant, the defendant disregarded its obligation to address a person subject to the sovereignty of a Member State in the official language of that state. This breach of law has prevented the applicant from fulfilling the requirements demanded on him with regard to proving its status as a small enterprise.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are unjustified and the administrative charge levied upon the applicant is disproportionate — The contested decisions are wrong on the substance. The applicant was entitled to benefit from a fee reduction according to Regulation (EC) 340/2008. The defendant’s invoice regarding the administrative charge is not justified because the administrative charge has been levied upon the applicant on the basis of an erroneous procedure. The administrative charge lacks an appropriate legal basis and is disproportionate.

(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

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/33

Action brought on 22 April 2014 — Hansen v OHIM (WIN365)

(Case T-264/14)

2014/C 194/42

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Robert Hansen (Munich, Germany) (represented by M. Pütz-Poulalion, 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 20 February 2014 in Case R 908/2013-4;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark WIN365 for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 5 13 851

Decision of the Examiner: Registration partially refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Second plea in law: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

The applicant claims that, by adopting the decision, the Commission also infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The German scheme to support renewable energy has already been subject to a thorough State aid assessment. In that assessment, the Commission in 2002 concluded that a transfer of State resources is not linked to that scheme. Since the 2012 EEG does not, in this respect, contain any substantial amendments to the legal position at the time, the economic operators concerned ought not to have expected a re-examination, but should have been entitled to rely on the continuance of the scheme.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/38

Action brought on 5 May 2014 — Sephora v OHIM — Mayfield Trading (Representation of two vertical lines)

(Case T-320/14)

2014/C 212/50

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Sephora (Boulogne Billancourt, France) (represented by: H. Delabarre, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mayfield Trading Ltd (Las Vegas, United States of America)

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 of 24 February 2014 in Case R 1577/2013-4;

— uphold the opposition and reject the application for registration of the Community trade mark No 1 0 2 14 773 lodged on 24 August 2011 by the company Mayfield Trading Ltd, for the goods in Class 3 ‘Perfumery goods; depilatory wax; essential oils; soaps; cosmetics; cosmetic creams; cosmetics kits (filled); depilatories; depilatory water; depilatory gel; hair lotions; dentifrices’ and the services in Classes 35 ‘Sale of soaps, perfumery, creams, essential oils, cosmetics, depilatory waxes, depilatory water, depilatory gel and other related goods’ and 44 ‘Hygienic and beauty care for human beings or animals; hair removal and beauty treatment’;

— order OHIM to pay the costs including those incurred before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Mayfield Trading Ltd

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing two vertical lines for goods and services in Classes 3, 35 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 2 14 773

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international figurative mark representing a vertical line for goods in Class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 75 and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
1.

First plea in law: Infringement of Articles 107(1) and 108 TFEU due to erroneous classification of the special compensation regime — The applicant claims that the opening decision infringes Articles 107(1) and 108 TFEU and Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1) because the EEG-surcharge provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG) did not constitute an allocation of State resources and the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users did not constitute a waiver of State resources. — The applicant states, in this context, that the Commission based its examination on new delimiting parameters which are incompatible with the principles of previous case-law. In particular, the Commission completely waived the criterion of the specific power of disposal of State authorities, which according to settled case-law is necessary for the classification as State resources, and deemed it to be sufficient for the State legislature to affect cash flows between private parties and for the compliance by the private parties with the legal requirements to be monitored by regulatory authorities. — In addition, the Commission is bound by its decision by which it did not classify the 2000 EEG as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because there was no transfer of State resources, and therefore erred in law by classifying the 2012 EEG as a new, unlawfully implemented aid scheme. — In addition, the Commission did not adequately examine and therefore also did not realise that the exceptions for energy-intensive users are justified according to the aim, nature and scheme of the 2012 EEG and therefore did not constitute a selective advantage.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/13

Action brought on 13 March 2014 — Søndagsavisen A/S v European Commission

(Case T-167/14)

2014/C 223/17

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Søndagsavisen A/S (Søborg, Denmark) (represented by: M. Honoré and C. Fornø)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission’s decision of 20 November 2013 not to raise objections to Denmark’s production and innovation aid for written media (SA.36366);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a competitor of the recipients of the aid, submits that the Commission ought to have found that there was doubt as to the compatibility of the reported measure with the internal market and that the Commission therefore ought to have adopted a decision to open the formal investigation procedure: see Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of the procedural regulation. (1) In failing to do so, the Commission has disregarded the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU.

In support of the argument that there was reasonable doubt as to the scheme’s compatibility with the internal market, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:

— the Commission failed entirely to examine whether the scheme was suitable for ensuring the expansion of news content provided to the Danish people, thereby supporting the democratic process;

— the contested decision in any event lacks a sufficient statement of reasons with regard to suitability; and

— the Commission failed to examine the competition-distorting effects of the scheme in the relationship between free newspapers and newspapers sold for money.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).