ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/29

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Reisenthel v OHIM — Dynamic Promotion (Hampers, crates and baskets)

(Case T-53/10) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity by the Invalidity Division - Notification of the Invalidity Division’s decision by fax - Appeal before the Board of Appeal - Written statement setting out the grounds of appeal - Period for submission - Admissibility of the appeal - Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Correction of a decision - Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful decision)

2011/C 347/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peter Reisenthel (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: E.A. Busse, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: initially by S. Schäffner, and subsequently by R. Manea and G. Schneider, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dynamic Promotion Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2009, as corrected by the decision of 10 December 2009 (Case R 621/2009-3), and against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2010 (Case R 621/2009-3), concerning invalidity proceedings between Peter Reisenthel and Dynamic Promotion Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 March 2010 (Case R 621/2009-3) insofar as it concerns Peter Reisenthel’s request for correction of 23 December 2009;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 331/19

Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne v OHIM — Natura Cosméticos (NATURAVIVA)

(Case T-107/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark NATURAVIVA - Earlier Community word mark VIVA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - No similarity of the signs)

2011/C 331/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Natura Cosméticos, SA (São Paulo, Brazil) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 November 2009 (Case R 1558/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne GmbH and Natura Cosméticos, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/12

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2011 — Saupiquet v Commission

(Case T-131/10) (1)

(Customs duty - Repayment of import duties - Canned tuna originating in Thailand - Tariff quota - Opening date - Sunday - Exhaustion of quota - Article 239 of the Community Customs Code - Articles 308a to 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Regulation (EC) No 975/2003)

2012/C 13/24

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Saupiquet (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: R. Ledru, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and L. Bouyon, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10005 final of 16 December 2009 finding that the repayment to the applicant of import duties on cans of tuna originating in Thailand is not justified.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Saupiquet to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/14

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Chabou v OHIM — Chalou (CHABOU)

(Case T-323/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark CHABOU - Earlier national and international word marks Chalou - Refusal to register - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 12(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 6/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Chickmouza Chabou (Rheine, Germany) (represented by: K.-J. Triebold, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Chalou GmbH (Herschweiler-Pettersheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Träger, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1165/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Chalou GmbH and Chickmouza Chabou

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders Mr Chickmouza Chabou to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/12

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2012 — Viaguara v OHIM

(Case T-332/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ‘VIAGUARA’ - Earlier Community word mark VIAGRA - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 65/23

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Viaguara S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: R. Skubisz, M. Mazurek and J. Dudzik, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Zajfert, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: initially M. Hawkins, Solicitor, V. von Bomhard and A. Renck, lawyers, then V. von Bomhard and M. Fowler, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 946/2009-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Pfizer Inc. and Viaguara S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Viaguara S.A. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/23

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Commission v Pachtitis

(Case T-361/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition - Non-admission to participation in the written test following the result obtained in the admission tests - Division of powers between EPSO and the competition selection board)

2012/C 32/46

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented: initially by J. Currall and I. Chatzigiannis, Agents, and subsequently by J. Currall, and by E. Antypas and E. Bourtzalas, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dimitrios Pachtitis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Giatagantzidis and K. Kyriazi, lawyers); and European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 June 2010 in Case F-35/08 Pachtitis v Commission, and for that judgment to be set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Dimitrios Pachtitis in the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/21

Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2012 — Conceria Kara v OHIM — Dima (KARRA)

(Case T-270/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark KARRA - Earlier national and Community figurative marks Kara - Company name Conceria Kara Srl and trade name Kara - Relative grounds for refusal - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8 of the Paris Convention - Bad faith)

2012/C 174/32

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Conceria Kara Srl (Trezzano sul Naviglio, Italy) (represented by P. Picciolini, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by G. Mannucci, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dima — Gida Tekstil Deri Insaat Maden Turizm Orman Urünleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret Ltd Sti (Istanbul, Turkey)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2010 (Case R 1172/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Conceria Kara Srl and Dima — Gida Tekstil Deri Insaat Maden Turizm Orman Urünleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret Ltd Sti.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Conceria Kara Srl to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/25

Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v OHIM (Highprotect)

(Case T-565/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Highprotect - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 118/42

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisbourg, Germany) (represented by: U. Ulrich, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2010 (Decision R 1038/2010-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Highprotect as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.
1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 29 April 2010 in so far as it impliedly refuses access to the documents which it sent to the colleague of the European Ombudsman, other than those identified by the latter in files 1 to 4 of the file relating to contract LIEN 97 2011;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/17

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Omya v OHIM — Alpha Calcit (CALCIMATT)

(Case T-547/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CALCIMATT - Prior Community word mark CALCILAN - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Refusal of registration)

2012/C 138/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Omya AG (Oftringen, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Kuschmirek and V. Dalichau, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: D. Botis; subsequently by: R. Manea; and finally by: G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: F. Hauck, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2010 (Case R 1370/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH and Omya AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Omya AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/17

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2012 — Deutscher Ring v OHIM (Deutscher Ring Sachversicherungs-AG)

(Case T-209/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Deutscher Ring Sachversicherungs-AG - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 243/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutscher Ring Sachversicherungs-AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: E. Busse, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2010 (Case R 1290/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Deutscher Ring Sachversicherungs-AG as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 March 2010 (Case R 1290/2009-1);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/18

Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2012 — Seven Towns Ltd v OHIM (Representation of seven squares of different colours)

(Case T-293/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community mark representing seven squares of different colours - Sign of which a Community trade mark may consist - Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 217/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Seven Towns Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Schäfer, lawyer,)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1475/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of a sign representing seven squares of different colours as a Community mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/24

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — J v Parliament

(Case T-160/10) (1)

(Right of petition - Petition addressed to the European Parliament - Decision to take no further action - Action for annulment - Duty to state reasons - Petition not falling within an area of activity of the European Union)

2012/C 355/50

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: J (Marchtrenk, Austria) (represented by: A. Auer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and N. Görlitz, agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions of 2 March 2010 to take no further action in relation to the petition lodged by the applicant on 19 November 2009 (petition No 1673/2009).

Operative part of the judgment

1. The action is dismissed;

2. Mr J is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in black, grey, beige and dark red)

(Case T-329/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in black, grey, beige and dark red - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2012/C 331/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by B. Schmidt, then D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2010 (Case R 191/2010-4) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a tartan pattern in black, grey, beige and dark red as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders V. Fraas GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/40

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2012 — Adamowski v OHIM — Fagumit (FAGUMIT)

(Joined Cases T-537/10 and T-538/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark Fagumit and Community figurative mark FAGUMIT - Earlier national figurative mark FAGUMIT - Relative ground for invalidity - Article 8(3) and Article 165(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 26/77

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ursula Adamowski (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: D. von Schultz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Fabryka Węży Gumowych i Tworzyw Sztucznych Fagumit sp. z o.o. (Fagumit) (Wolbrom, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, T. Targosz and P. Podrecki, lawyers)

Re:

Two actions brought against two decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2010 (Cases R 1002/2009-1 and R 1003/2009-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Fabryka Węży Gumowych i Tworzyw Sztucznych Fagumit sp. z o.o. and Ursula Adamowski.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders that Cases T-537/10 and T-538/10 be joined for the purposes of judgment;

2. Dismisses the actions;

3. Orders Ursula Adamowski to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Fabryka Węży Gumowych i Tworzyw Sztucznych Fagumit sp. z o.o. relating to the proceedings before the Court.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/31

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Sviluppo Globale v Commission

(Case T-183/10) (1)

(Public service contracts - Public procurement procedure - Supply of technical assistance to the Government of Syria - Rejection of the tender - Duty to state reasons)

2012/C 366/59

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sviluppo Globale GEIE (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and A. Neri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, acting as Agent, and P. Manzini, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 14 February 2010 not to accept the tender submitted by the consortium led by the applicant in the restricted procedure EuropeAid/129038/C/SER/SY for the supply to the Syrian Government of technical assistance services designed to facilitate decentralisation and local development (OJ 2010 2009/S 223 319862)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 14 February 2010 not to accept the tender submitted by the consortium led by the applicant in the restricted procedure EuropeAid/129038/C/SER/SY for the supply to the Syrian Government of technical assistance services designed to facilitate decentralisation and local development (OJ 2010 2009/S 223 319862);

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sviluppo Globale GEIE.

(1) OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/14

Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2013 — in ‘t Veld v Commission

(Case T-301/10) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the draft international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) - Negotiating documents - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest with regard to international relations - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 129/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sophie in ‘t Veld (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and J. Blockx, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Hermes and C. ten Dam, and subsequently by: Mr Hermes and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, initially, for partial annulment of the Commission Decision of 4 May 2010, reference SG.E.3/HP/psi — Ares(2010)234950, in so far as it refused access to certain documents relating to the draft international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision of 4 May 2010, reference SG.E.3/HP/psi — Ares(2010)234950, in so far as it refuses to grant access to documents 21 and 25 of the list annexed to that decision and to the following redactions made on other documents of that list: — document 45, page 2, under the heading ‘Participants’, second paragraph, last sentence; — document 47, page 1, under ‘Participants’ second paragraph, last sentence; — document 47, page 2, under ‘1. Digital Environment (including Internet)’, second paragraph, last sentence; — document 48, page 2, the paragraph under Section 4, end of sentence.

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action.

3. Orders Sophie in ‘t Veld to bear half of her own costs and half of the costs of the European Commission.

4. Orders the Commission to bear half of its costs and half of Ms in ‘t Veld’s costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/16

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — Acron v Council

(Case T-118/10) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia - Request for a new exporter review - Normal value - Export price - Articles 1, 2 and 11(4) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1, 2 and 11(4) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

2013/C 101/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Acron OAO (Veliky Novgorod, Russia) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer, and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and C. Clyne, Agents); and Fertilizers Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor)

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1251/2009 of 18 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1911/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating, inter alia, in Russia (OJ 2009 L 338, p. 5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Acron OAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Fertilizers Europe;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
1.

The European Commission is ordered to compensate Gap SA granen & producten NV for the loss suffered by it as a result of the application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 919/2009 of 1 October 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 915/2009 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 October 2009, in so far as that regulation did not take account of the fob quotation or use a calculation method which was representative of actual freight costs for the fixing of import duties for high-quality durum wheat.