ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 167/18

Action brought on 14 May 2009 — Amen Corner v OHIM — Comercio Electrónico Ojal (SEVE TROPHY)

(Case T-192/09)

2009/C 167/35

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Amen Corner (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, 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: Comercio Electrónico Ojal (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2009 in Case R 462/2008-2 in so far as it allowed registration of a Community trade mark for goods in class 9;

— as a consequence of that annulment, refuse the application for Community trade mark 4 617 213 in its entirety;

— order OHIM, and the other parties before the Court, to pay the costs of the present proceedings should they be contested, and reject the claims of OHIM and the other parties before the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Comercio Electrónico Ojal S.L.

Community trade mark applied for: Figurative mark including the verbal component ‘SEVE TROPHY’ (Application No 4 617 213) for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25, 28, 35 and 41.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative trade marks ‘SEVE TROPHY’ and ‘SEVE BALLESTEROS TROPHY’ (No 1 541 226, No 1 980 341, No 2 068 682 and No 3 846 235) for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 25, 28, 35 and 41.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition brought under Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) (replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld in part.

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/60

Action brought on 3 June 2009 — ERGO Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM — Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle (ERGO Group)

(Case T-221/09)

2009/C 180/111

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: ERGO Versicherungsgruppe AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, T.Dolde and J. Pause, 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: Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle SAS (Chenôve, France)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2009 in Case R 520/2008-4; and

— Order the defendant 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 ‘ERGO’ for goods and services in Classes 3 and 5 (Application No 3 296 449)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle SAS

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘URGO’ (Community trade mark No 989 863) for goods an services in Classes 3 and 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partial acceptance of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)) in as much as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

(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 167/18

Action brought on 13 May 2009 — Lan Airlines v OHIM — Air Nostrum (LÍNEAS AÉREAS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO LAM)

(Case T-194/09)

2009/C 167/36

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Lan Airlines, SA (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, 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: Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo, SA (Manises, Spain)

Form of order sought

— declare, in view of the lodging of this pleading and the documents attached to it, that the action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office of 19 February 2009 in Case R 0107/2008-4 has been lodged within the prescribed period and in the correct form and, following the appropriate procedural steps, deliver judgment annulling the said decision and expressly order the Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo, SA

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘LÍNEAS AÉREAS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO LAM’ (Application No 4 448 061) for services in class 39.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lan Airlines, SA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘LAN’ (No 3 350 899) for services in classes 35, 39 and 43; and the Community figurative mark constituted by the word ‘LAN’ flanked by a star (No 3 694 957) for services in class 39.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (replaced by Regulation No 207/2009).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 193/23

Action brought on 14 May 2009 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-184/09)

2009/C 193/37

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos, E. Leftheriotou, V. Karra)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— grant the application and annul the contested decision or, in the alternative, alter it so that the financial correction is reduced to 5 % or, in the alternative, the correction of 10 % is applied only to the amount which corresponds to the sugar imported by E.V.Z.;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its application for annulment of the Commission decision of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), which was notified under document number C(2009) 1945 and published under No 2099/253/EC (OJ 2009 L 75, p. 15) and which concerns the imposition of corrections in respect of export refunds and the common organisation of the market in sugar, because of a lack of controls, the Hellenic Republic puts forward the following pleas for annulment.

By the first plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic submits that the procedure for clearance of the accounts was invalid because of breach of a substantial procedural requirement that is laid down by Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95, (1) relating to the failure to engage in bilateral discussion, so far as concerns the imposition of a correction for refunds in respect of sugar in non-Annex I products.

By the second plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic alleges misappraisal of the facts, an insufficient statement of reasons and that the limits of the Commission’s discretion were exceeded, as regards the assessment of risk for the Fund.

By the third plea for annulment, it alleges breach of the principle of proportionality.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ 1995 L 158, p. 6).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/45

Action brought on 6 July 2009 — Defense Technology v OHIM — DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR)

(Case T-262/09)

2009/C 205/83

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Defense Technology Corporation of America (Jacksonville, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer and Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DEF-TEC Defense Technology GmbH (Frankfurt/Main, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 2009 in case R 493/2002-4 (II); and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 ‘FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR’, for goods in classes 5, 8 and 13 — application No 643 668

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

Mark or sign cited: United States trade mark registration for the word mark ‘FIRST DEFENSE’ for goods in class 13; Two United States trade mark registrations of figurative marks for goods in class 13; An earlier well-known mark in Belgium, Germany and France ‘FIRST DEFENSE’; An earlier well-known mark in Belgium, Germany and France ‘FIRST DEFENSE AND DESIGN’; An earlier non-registered work mark ‘FIRST DEFENSE’ protected in Germany and France; An earlier non-registered mark in Belgium, Germany and France ‘FIRST DEFENSE AND DESIGN’; A trade name ‘FIRST DEFENSE’, protected in Germany

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(3) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal did not properly apply the said provision and, moreover, wrongly rendered a decision based on a flawed understanding of the facts presented; Infringement of Articles 65, 75 and 76 of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 September 2006 in case T-6/05 DEF-TEC Defense Technology v OHIM — Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/36

Action brought on 2 July 2009 — Tecnoprocess v Commission and European Commission Delegation to Morocco

(Case T-264/09)

2009/C 220/76

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tecnoprocess Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Majoli, lawyer)

Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and European Commission Delegation to Morocco

Form of order sought

— Declare, pursuant to Article 232 EC, that the EU Delegation to Rabat and the European Commission failed to act;

— declare, pursuant to Article 288 EC, that the Delegation and the Commission have incurred non-contractual liability as regards the applicant and order them, jointly and severally, to pay to the applicant compensation for the damage suffered by it in the sum of EUR 1 000 000,00 (one million).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case operates in various sectors of the industrial market. Since 2002, Tecnoprocess has operated in the market relating to procedures managed by EuropeAid on behalf of the Commission for the allocation of projects for the grant of external aid to developing countries financed by the EU budget or the European Development Fund. With the present action, the applicant seeks to submit for review by the Court the conduct of the defendants in connection with the implementation of the following contracts:

— EuropeAid Contract 1144205/D/S/MA (marché 14/2003/meda/b7 — 4100/ib/96/0587) — RISTORAZIONE;

— EuropeAid Contract 114194/D/S/MA (marché 15/2003/meda/b7 — 4100/ib/96/0587) — FREDDO;

— EuropeAid Contract 114194/D/S/MA (marché 16/2003/meda/b7 — 4100/ib/96/0587) — FREDDO; and

— EuropeAid Contract 12088/D/S/MA — Centre Assistance Technique des Industriels des Equipements pour véchicules (Cetiev) Lots 3 and 6.

The purpose of the first three contracts, which were concluded as part of the MEDA 1 programme, was the provision of equipment and accessories for the restauration and canteen services of the Office de la Formation professionnelle et de la Promotion du Travail (OFPPT) in Rabat.

In implementing those contracts, the OFPPT refused to countersign acknowledgments of receipt for goods, even though it used the products at issue, which were properly supplied by the applicant.

Similar difficulties were encountered in relation to the fourth contract, which was concluded as part of the MEDA 2 programme and related to the provision of highly specialised machinery which was intended for the purpose of carrying out tests on filters for motor vehicles.

According to the applicant, the failure to act on the part of the defendants, which consists in their failure to find a solution that could satisfy the applicant’s interests in response to the serious shortcomings in the performance of the contracts in question, is such as to give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community.

The applicant also alleges in this connection infringement of Article 56 of the Finance Regulation, the principles of the protection of legitimate expectation and proportionality and the right to confidentiality.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/40

Action brought on 17 July 2009 — Fédération Internationale des Logis v OHIM

(Case T-282/09)

2009/C 220/84

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Fédération Internationale des Logis (Paris, France) (represented by B. Brisset, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2009 in Case R 1511/2008-1 and allow registration of the trade mark applied for;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a green square for goods and services in Classes 3, 18, 24, 43 and 44 — Application No 6 468 789

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, as the representation of a square with convex edges in a particular and specific green colour is distinctive with regard to the goods and services for which the registration was sought, in so far as those elements give the mark a particular appearance for those goods and services.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 244/13

Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Earle Beauty v OHIM (NATURALLY ACTIVE)

(Case T-307/09)

2009/C 244/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Liz Earle Beauty Co. Ltd (Ryde, United Kingdom) (represented by M. Cover, Solicitor)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 May 2009 in case R 27/2009-2 and declare that the Community trade mark concerned can proceed to publication and registration; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NATURALLY ACTIVE’ for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 16, 18, 35 and 44

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the phrase ‘Naturally Active’ was normal in the English language and was therefore a laudatory term that could be easily understood by the general public, thus having no inherent distinctiveness; infringement of Article 7(3) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 7(3) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal: (i) was incorrect to find that the trade mark concerned had not become distinctive through use; and (ii) appears to have not given due weight to the objective evidence provided by the applicant and therefore did not have good and adequate reasons for their finding in relation to this legal provision; infringement of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 7(2) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal was wrong to apply the test for this legal provision, in relation to their findings for Article 7(3) of Council Regulation 40/94, to all Member States of the EU, instead of applying the relevant test only to Member States which are predominantly English speaking.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 244/14

Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Intercéréales and Grossi v Commission

(Case T-314/09)

2009/C 244/24

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Intercéréales (Paris, France) and Alain Grossi (Nîmes, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret and L. Olza Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final (1) of 10 December 2008 in which the Commission found that the umbrella scheme likely to be run by the inter-branch organisations of French farmers (organisations interprofessionnelles agricoles françaises), consisting in aids for technical assistance; for the production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products; for research and development, and for advertising which promotes primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by way of ministerial decree, levied on members of those inter-branch organisations, constitutes State aid which is compatible with the common market.

The pleas and principal submissions relied upon by the applicants are substantially the same as, or similar to, those put forward in the context of Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission.

(1) OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/27

Action brought on 30 July 2009 — EFIM v Commission

(Case T-296/09)

2009/C 256/50

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: D. Ehle, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Commission of 20 May 2009 in case — COMP/C 3/39.391 EFIM;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of 20 May 2009 in case — COMP/C 3/39.391 EFIM. In that decision, the Commission dismissed the applicant’s complaint, in which it claimed various infringements of Articles 81 and 82 EC by several manufactures of ink-jet printers on their markets for ink-cartridges.

In the reasoning for its action, the applicant claims, first, that the Commission did not take into account a large number of important elements of fact and, in so doing, infringed the principle of sound administration, the duty of care, the obligation to state reasons and the right to a fair hearing. Moreover, the applicant contends that the assessments made by the defendant in the contested decision, in particular with regard to the criteria for priority in treatment of the appeal procedure, are obviously incorrect and vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. Finally, it is submitted that an effective protection of competition, against the restrictions alleged by the applicant, can only be safeguarded by the defendant, because the national Competition Authorities and the Courts only have limited territorial jurisdiction.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/69

Action brought on 24 August 2009 — Fédération Internationale des Logis v OHIM (Brown convex square)

(Case T-329/09)

2009/C 267/126

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Fédération Internationale des Logis (Paris, France) (represented by C. Champagner Katz, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2009 in Case R 0202/2009-1 and allow registration of the trade mark applied for;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Mark representing a brown convex square for the goods and services in Classes 3, 18, 24, 43 and 44 — Application No 6468722

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the representation of a special and specific square with convex edges in a particular and specific brown colour is distinctive with respect to the goods and services for which registration was sought, in so far as those elements give the mark a particular appearance for those goods and services.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/66

Action brought on 10 August 2009 — Hoelzer v OHIM (SAFELOAD)

(Case T-315/09)

2009/C 267/119

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Oliver Hoelzer (Remscheid, Germany) (represented by G. Rother and J. Vogtmeier, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 June 2009 (R 1157/2008-4);

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in connection with the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘SAFELOAD’ for goods in Classes 6 and 12 (application No 6330831)

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the word element of the mark applied for does not describe the characteristics of the goods covered by the application.

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