ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/27

Action brought on 8 February 2012 — Chen v OHIM — AM Denmark (Cleaning devices)

(Case T-55/12)

2012/C 133/53

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Su-Shan Chen (Sanchong, Taiwan) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AM Denmark A/S (Kokkedal, Denmark)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 October 2011 in case R 2179/2010-3; and

— Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for the product ‘cleaning devices’ — registered Community design No 1027718-0001

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal requested the invalidation of the RCD based on Articles 4 to 9 and Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation No 6/2002; three-dimensional Community trade mark registration No 5185079, for goods in classes 3 and 21

Decision of the Invalidity Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation No 6/2002, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that the earlier Community trade mark was used in the contested Community design. Besides, the Board of Appeal did not have to presume that the earlier trade mark possessed at least a minimum degree of distinctiveness necessary for its registrability. Infringement of Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not correctly apply this Article. Indeed, contrary to the view taken by OHIM, Article 9(1)(b) CTMR does not confer on other party before the OHIM the right to prohibit the use of the contested Community design, as there is no likelihood of confusion. In particular, the applicant’s Community design and the trade mark of the other party are not so similar as to account for a likelihood of confusion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 126/19

Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses (R)

(Case T-89/12)

2012/C 126/39

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.B. Devaureix)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ajuntament de Roses, Roses (Girona), Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare the action admissible, together with all of the relevant documents and copies;

— declare the proposed evidence admissible;

— accept that evidence, and annul and declare inapplicable the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2011 and, consequently, allow the registration of Community trade mark No 7 440 407‘R’ for the goods in Class 25 in respect of which registration was originally sought, and those in Class 35 in respect of which registration has been refused;

— 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: figurative mark ‘R’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 35 and 41 (application No 7440407).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ajuntament de Roses.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark No 2593913 for goods and services in Classes 6, 9, 16, 25 and 35.

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld for some of the goods and services against which it was brought, in Classes 25 and 35, and application rejected in respect of those goods.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: action dismissed.

Pleas in law: Erroneous application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting signs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/19

Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission

(Case T-216/12)

2012/C 243/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haïfa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haïfa) (represented by: D. Grisay, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— admit this action for annulment based on Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

— declare it to be admissible, and

— primarily, declare the action well-founded and annul the decision for compensation of the Commission, Directorate General of Information Society and Media, contained in its letter of 13 March 2012, directed against TECHNION;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-657/11 Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission. (1)

(1) OJ 2012 C 73, p. 28.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/18

Action brought on 29 February 2012 — Cytochroma Development v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

(Case T-106/12)

2012/C 138/34

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cytochroma Development, Inc. (St. Michael, Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister and A. Smith, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 December 2011 in case R 1235/2011-1; and

— Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALPHAREN’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 4320297

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: Hungarian trade mark registration No 134972 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5; Lithuanian trade mark registration No 20613 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5; Latvian trade mark registration No M30407 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Commission Regulation No 216/96 in that a member of the Board who took the original decision was also a member of the Board that took the new decision after referral; infringement of Article 65(6) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 1(d)(1) of Commission Regulation No 216/96 regarding the measures taken to comply with the judgment of the General Court; Infringement of Article 76(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to the examination of facts of its own motion in a relative grounds case; infringement of the principle of legal certainty, as well as Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/24

Action brought on 28 May 2012 — Saobraćajni institut CIP v Commission

(Case T-219/12)

2012/C 227/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Saobraćajni institut CIP d.o.o. (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: A. Lojpur, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul a call for tender published on 27 March 2012, concerning preparation of technical documentation for the rail modernization project ‘Doubling and upgrading of existing railway corridor Xb, section Novi Sad (excluding the junction)–Subotica–Hungarian border’ in accordance with EU interoperability standards, AGC, AGTC and the SEECP Agreement (OJ 2012/S 60-096517), excluding the applicant from participating in it;

— Award damages for the alleged pecuniary loss;

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

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 — that there was no legal ground for a priori exclusion of the applicant in participating in a call for tender in question since there was no conflict of interest;

2. Second plea in law, alleging — that the applicant’s exclusion from tender is contrary to IPA Regulation (1);

3. Third plea in law, alleging — that the conditions for awarding the contract were unlawful.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17.7.2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (OJ L 210, p. 82)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/24

Action brought on 24 May 2012 — National Trust for Scotland v OHIM — Comhairle na Eilean Siar (ST KILDA)

(Case T-222/12)

2012/C 227/41

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: National Trust for Scotland (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. MacKenzie, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Comhairle na Eilean Siar (Isle of Lewis, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

— that the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) dated 26 March 2012, in case R 310/2011-4, should be annulled in its entirety and that the application be refused;

— that OHIM and any intervening parties in this Appeal shall bear their own costs and pay the Applicant’s costs of these proceedings and those of the Appeal procedure before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ST KILDA for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 39, 41 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 8 283 871

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Grounds laid down in Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, more particularly a non-registered trade mark protected in the UK, as well as third party observations under Article 40 of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/29

Action brought on 6 June 2012 — EGL and Others v Commission

(Case T-251/12)

2012/C 227/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: EGL, Inc. (Houston, United States), CEVA Freight (UK) Ltd (Ashby de la Zouch, United Kingdom), CEVA Freight Shanghai Ltd (Shanghai, China) (represented by: M. Brealey, QC (Queen's Counsel), S. Love, Barrister, M. Pullen, D. Gillespie and R. Fawcett-Feuillette, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final, dated 28 March 2012 in case COMP/39462 — Freight Forwarding, relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, insofar as the applicants were found to have been involved in two infringements of Article 101(1) TFEU, consisting of the so-called New Export System (‘NES’) arrangement and the Currency Adjustment Factor (‘CAF’) arrangement;

— Annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final, dated 28 March 2012, insofar as it imposes fines on the applicants or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of making the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to define the relevant market affected by the NES and CAF arrangements and has therefore breached the essential requirements of legal certainty. As such, it has committed an error of law and/or assessment of the facts.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to establish that the NES arrangement had an appreciable effect on trade between EU Member States. As such, it has erred in law and/or in its assessment of the facts in finding such an effect.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has imposed a fine in relation to the NES arrangement when it had no authority to do so as a consequence of Council Regulation (EEC) No 141/62 (1) as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 (2). To this extent the contested decision is vitiated by lack of standing and/or an error of law.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant, having erroneously awarded Deutsche Post immunity in respect of the CAF arrangement, has failed properly to recognise the intrinsic value of the evidence provided by the applicants in their immunity/leniency application to the Commission’s case in relation to the CAF arrangement.

(1) Regulation No 141 of the Council exempting transport from the application of Council Regulation No 17 (OJ 1962 124, p. 2751)

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 of 14 December 1987 laying down the procedure for the application of the rules on competition to undertakings in the air transport sector (OJ 1987 L 374, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/27

Action brought on 30 May 2012 — Rocket Dog Brands/OHIM — Julius-K9 (JULIUS K9)

(Case T-231/12)

2012/C 227/47

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rocket Dog Brands LLC (Heywood, USA) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Julius-K9 bt (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

Form of order sought

— To annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 21 March 2012 (R 1124/2011-4) insofar as it rejects the Opposition in relation to all goods in class 25; and

— to order the Applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Opponent

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘JULIUS K9’ for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 8 542 201

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Two figurative marks depicting a dog, (crossed) bone(s) and the alphanumeric combination ‘K 9’ for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 April 2012 in Case R 2150/2011-1;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the fine imposed on Alban Giacomo SpA is unlawful, in so far as it is contrary to the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and to the offence and the principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment and proportionality. — By the second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission failed correctly to ensure that the fine imposed on it was commensurate with its degree of responsibilty vis-à-vis that of the other undertakings participating in the cartel, in breach of the fundametal princples of proportionality and equal treatment and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and to the offence. — The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of this plea: (i) the percentage of sales used for the purpose of calculating the fine is excessive; (ii) in the alternative, the refusal to grant the applicant the benefit of an attenuating circumstance is unjustified; (iii) in the further alternative, the Commission should have further reduced the fine imposed on the applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 273/14

Action brought on 3 July 2012 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)

(Case T-292/12)

2012/C 273/25

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Zug, Suisse) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

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 24 April 2012 in case R 1722/2011-4 and reject the opposition No B 1681447; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MAGNEXT’, for goods in class 28 — Community trade mark application No 8990591

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: Spanish trade mark registration No 2550099 of the word mark ‘MAGNET 4’, for goods in class 28; Community trade mark registration No 3840121 of the figurative mark ‘Diset Magnetics’, for goods and services in classes 16, 28 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 273/13

Action brought on 26 June 2012 — EI du Pont de Nemours v OHIM — Zueco Ruiz (ZYTEL)

(Case T-288/12)

2012/C 273/23

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Enrique Zueco Ruiz (Zaragoza, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 March 2012 in case R 464/2011-2; and

— Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ZYTEL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 12 and 37

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 369314, of the word mark ‘ZYTEL’, for goods in classes 1 and 17; Well-known mark ‘ZYTEL’, for goods in classes 1 and 17

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principle of sound administration and the right to be heard by not consulting the Dutch State and ING with respect to facts and its views and assumptions that were pertinent for its conclusion that the amendment to the terms of the core-tier-1 capital injection constituted aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, requiring that duties be imposed only insofar as they are necessary to offset the effects of injurious dumping; Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation, requiring that duties are collected independently of the customs duties, taxes and other charges; and Articles 20(1) and 20(2) of the basic Regulation, requiring the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which anti-dumping duties are imposed, as the defendant committed a series of manifest errors in calculating the injury margin and also failed to produce a statement of reasons.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/38

Action brought on 30 July 2012 — El Hogar Perfecto del Siglo XXI v OHIM — Wenf International Advisers (Corkscrews)

(Case T-337/12)

2012/C 287/68

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Hogar Perfecto del Siglo XXI, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Ruiz Gallegos and E. Veiga Conde, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wenf International Advisers Ltd (Tortola, Virgin Islands)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 June 2012 in Appeal R 89/2011-3;

— order OHIM and the intervener 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: Design for corkscrews — Community design 00083 0831-0001

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: Wenf International Advisers Ltd

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National design for bottle openers

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Articles 4 and 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/16

Action brought on 20 August 2012 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL)

(Case T-375/12)

2012/C 343/28

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck (Ingelmunster, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM (Tortola, British Virgin Islands)

Form of order sought

— annul in its entirety the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 June 2012 in Case R 652/2011-2;

— order OHIM and Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The international word mark ‘KASTEEL’ for goods in Class 32 — International registration No W 975 634

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National trade mark ‘CASTEL BEER’ for goods in Class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Breach of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Breach of Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009;