ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/36

Appeal brought on 12 September 2014 by the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 July 2014 in Case F-63/13 Psarras v ENISA

(Case T-689/14 P)

(2014/C 431/59)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) (represented by P. Empadinhas and by C. Meidanis, lawyer)

Other party to the appeal: Aristides Psarras (Heraklion, Greece)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

— set aside in its entirety the judgment of 2 July 2014 of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-63/13;

— reject in their entirety the claims made by the applicant at first instance in Case F-63/13; and

— order the applicant at first instance to pay all the legal costs, both before the Civil Service Tribunal and before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal the appellant relies on five grounds.

1. The first ground of appeal claims a distortion of the facts as regards the events of 4 May 2012 and the subsequent period, and an error of law as regards Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Union (together with Article 59 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union).

2. The second ground of appeal claims an error of law, with regard to Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, in so far as it was held that a ruling that that provision has been infringed entails ipso jure and automatically the annulment of the contested decision, disregarding the case-law in accordance with which the applicant should additionally have proved that, in the absence of that infringement, the content of the contested decision would have been different, and on the basis of the new interpretation of the provision in the ruling that the previous case-law ‘renders [the provision] wholly meaningless’.

3. The third ground of appeal claims a breach of the obligation of the Civil Service Tribunal to answer the defendant’s objections of inadmissibility and an insufficient statement of reasons and in addition breach of the obligation to uphold the preliminary procedure for an application for compensation.

4. The fourth ground of appeal claims disregard of the case-law to the effect that the annulment of the contested decision can itself constitute adequate compensation, insufficient statement of reasons, the fact that the Civil Service Tribunal ruled ultra vires and manifest error of assessment
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/44

Action brought on 9 December 2014 — Gervais Danone v OHIM — San Miguel (B'lue)

(Case T-803/14)

(2015/C 034/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie Gervais Danone (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Lakits, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: San Miguel, Fábricas de Cerveza y Malta, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘B’lue’ — Community trade mark registration No 1 0 5 49 509

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2014 in Case R 1382/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/41

Action brought on 26 November 2014 — Ugly v OHIM — Group Lottuss (COYOTE UGLY)

(Case T-778/14)

(2015/C 026/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ugly, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: T. St Quintin, Barrister, K. Gilbert and C. Mackey, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Group Lottuss Corp., SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘COYOTE UGLY’ — Community trade mark application No 1 2 26 198

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2014 in Case R 1369/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decisions of the Opposition Division and of the Board of Appeal and remit the opposition back to the Opposition Division for reconsideration;

— Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/45

Action brought on 19 December 2014 — Eveready Battery Company v OHIM — Hussain and Others (POWER EDGE)

(Case T-824/14)

(2015/C 065/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Eveready Battery Company, Inc. (St. Louis, United States) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Imran Hussain and Others (Leeds, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Power Edge’ — Application for registration No 9 108 705

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 in Case R 38/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/55

Action brought on 24 November 2014 — Red Lemon v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONICX2)

(Case T-776/14)

(2015/C 046/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: the applicant

Trade mark at issue: the Community figurative mark including the word element ‘ABTRONICX2’ — Application No 8 534 943

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2014 in Case R 2078/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject the opposition;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging — in the event that the Court finds that the Commission acted within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaties — that the Commission failed to observe the principle of sound administration and breached Romania’s rights of the defence — The Commission breached its duty to exercise due diligence and the duty of sound administration in so far as it did not carefully examine all the relevant information available to it and ask for other necessary information before adopting the contested decision. The Commission did not establish a direct causal link between the acts imputed to Romania and the loss of EU traditional own resources. Nor did the Commission justify the sum asked of Romania by reference to the amount of customs duty corresponding to the value of the transit in question, on the sufficient basis of the value remitted by the Federal Republic of Germany. — The Commission’s actions were unforeseeable and did not allow Romania to exercise its rights of the defence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/50

Action brought on 22 December 2014 — Airpressure Bodyforming v OHIM (Slim legs by airpressure bodyforming)

(Case T-842/14)

(2015/C 065/68)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Airpressure Bodyforming GmbH (Berchtesgaden, Germany) (represented by: S. Merz, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Slim legs by airpressure bodyforming’ — Application No 12 533 709

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2014 in Case R 1570/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/53

Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Beiersdorf v OHIM (Q10)

(Case T-4/15)

(2015/C 065/73)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Beiersdorf AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Q10’ — Application for registration No 11 480 837

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2014 in Case R 2050/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/38

Action brought on 22 January 2015 — Wolf Oil v OHIM — SCT Lubricants (CHEMPIOIL)

(Case T-34/15)

(2015/C 089/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Wolf Oil Corp. (Hemiksem, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: UAB SCT Lubricants (Klaipeda, Lithuania)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘CHEMPIOIL’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 0 76 327

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2014 in Case R 1596/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and the intervener to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Wolf Oil.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/39

Action brought on 14 January 2015 — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council

(Case T-35/15)

(2015/C 089/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC (Tal Kurdi, Syria) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, as regards the applicant;

— annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, as regards the applicant;

— order the Council to pay all the costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing, since it was not possible for the applicant to be heard prior to the adoption of the sanctions.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessment of the facts.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right to property and the right to engage in an occupation.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are unlawful, since the requirements of Article 32 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1) and Articles 14 and 26 of Regulation No 36/2012 (2) are not met in that the applicant did not knowingly and voluntarily participate in any attempts to evade the European or international sanctions.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging misuse of power, since there is reason to believe, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, that the dispute measures have been taken with the main purpose of achieving ends other than those stated (market exclusion — favouring other players).

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

(1) Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14).

(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/41

Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Facchinello v OHIM — Olimpia Splendid (Synthesis)

(Case T-81/15)

(2015/C 118/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Danila Facchinello (Molinella, Italy) (represented by: F. Torlontano, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Olimpia Splendid SpA (Gualtieri, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Synthesis’ — Community trade mark No 2 8 71 069

Procedure before OHIM: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 in Case R 2169/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 and, consequently, declare that the Community trade mark Synthesis is not revoked in respect of goods in Class 11 (apparatus for air conditioning);

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 February 2015 — Certified Angus Beef v OHIM — Certified Australian Angus Beef (CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF)

(Case T-55/15)

(2015/C 107/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Certified Angus Beef, LLC (Wooster, Ohio, United States of America) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Certified Australian Angus Beef Pty Ltd (Surrey Hills, Australia)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 095 394

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2014 in Case R 662/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the Opposition in its entirety;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
First plea in law: Manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the facts

The European Commission misunderstood the underlying facts, namely the functioning of the Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, in particular the financial flows system under that law. In addition, the Commission misunderstood the role ‘of the State’ as legislator and as body with responsibility for supervisory authorities and incorrectly deduced a situation of control therefrom.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/43

Action brought on 19 February 2015 — Alfa Wassermann Hungary v OHIM — Pharma Mar (YLOELIS)

(Case T-85/15)

(2015/C 118/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alfa Wassermann Hungary kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pharma Mar, SA (Colmenar Viejo, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘YLOELIS’ — Application for registration No 1 0 9 14 431

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2014 in Case R 1100/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of 24 February 2014 (opposition proceedings No B 2 0 66 184);

— reject the opposition No B 2 0 66 184 in its entirety;

— order OHIM and the opponent to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

annul the decisions of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, of 9 December 2014, on the designation of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (02008.EIT.2014.I.EIT.GB) and on the rejection of the KENUP proposal as notified by letter of 10 December 2014 (012234.EIT.D.2014.MK) and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/52

Action brought on 4 February 2015 — Sharif University of Technology/Conseil

(Case T-52/15)

(2015/C 138/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sharif University of Technology (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Happold, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Annex to Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP, Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014, and Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 insofar as they concern the applicant;

— award the applicant a compensation to make good the damage to its reputation caused by the Council’s actions; and

— order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By support of its action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Annex to Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP (1), Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (2), the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 (3), and Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (4) insofar as they concern the applicant.

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicant’s rights of the defence and its right to effective judicial protection;

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has made manifest errors of assessment as regards its adoption of restrictive measures against the applicant;

Third plea in law, arguing that the Council has violated the applicant’s right to property and the principle of proportionality; and

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has misused its powers in adopting restrictive measures against the applicant.

(1) Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 325, 19)

(2) Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ L 195, 39)

(3) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 325, 3)

(4) Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ L 88, 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/31

Action brought on 20 March 2015 — Rotkäppchen — Mumm Sektkellereien v OHIM — Ruiz Moncayo (RED RIDING HOOD)

(Case T-128/15)

(2015/C 171/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rotkäppchen — Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH (Freyburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alberto Ruiz Moncayo (Entrena, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘RED RIDING HOOD’ — Application for registration No 11 299 831

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 January 2015 in Case R 1012/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 27 March 2014 in opposition proceedings No B 2 177 817;

— reject the CTM application No 11 299 831;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/31

Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Sfera Joven v OHIM — Las banderas del Mediterráneo (NOOSFERA)

(Case T-99/15)

(2015/C 155/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sfera Joven, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Las banderas del Mediterráneo, SL (Cox, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘NOOSFERA’ — Application for registration No 11 233 681

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2014 in Case R 158/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 12 December 2014 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 158/2014-4 in so far as in rejecting the opponent’s appeal, it confirmed the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting Opposition B 2 160 557 and granting in full Community trade mark No 11 233 681 ‘NOOSFERA’ (word mark);

— order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) erred in law in having held, where the conditions for admissions are ‘similar’, a jury is required to give reasons for the decision and not to admit a candidate to the tests on the basis of the assessment carried out by another jury for another competition in respect of the same candidate.