ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/25

Action brought on 28 March 2014 — Richard Anton v ECHA

(Case T-208/14)

2014/C 202/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Richard Anton KG (Grâfelfing, Germany) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and J. Schrotz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare the decision No SME(2013) 4524 of 21 January 2014 of the European Chemicals Agency as well as invoice No 10046845 of 23 January 2014 to be void; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging alleging the defendant’s lack of competence — The defendant has not been competent to adopt the contested decision SME(2013) 4524. Neither Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (1) nor Regulation (EC) 340/2008 (2) entitles the defendant to issue a separate decision as to whether a registrant complies with the SME criteria.

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

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

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/30

Action brought on 11 April 2014 — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb v OHIM — Yorma’s (Yorma Eberl)

(Case T-229/14)

2014/C 194/38

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Parr, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yorma’s AG (Deggendorf, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 February 2014 in Case R 532/2013-4;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Yorma’s AG

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Yorma Eberl’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 9 40 289

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The trade and firm name in commercial use and national and Community word marks NORMA for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/33

Action brought on 27 March 2014 — Schroeder v Council and Commission

(Case T-205/14)

2014/C 212/42

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: I. Schroeder KG (GmbH & Co.) (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Landry, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought

— Order the defendants to pay compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 3 45 644 together with interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of delivery of the judgment, or to declare that the applicant is entitled to compensation from the defendants;

— Order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks compensation on account of the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008, (1) which was declared invalid by judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 March 2012 in Case C-338/10 GLS.

The applicant submits that although the anti-dumping duties wrongly collected on the basis of that regulation have been refunded by the national customs authorities, it suffered financial loss as a result of the fact that it was compelled by the withdrawal of liquidity to obtain additional bank loans at the usual market rates of interest. The applicant therefore seeks reimbursement of the difference between the interest it paid on its bank loans and the lower amount of interest that it would have had to pay if no anti-dumping duties had been collected. The applicant submits in that regard that, by unlawfully adopting Regulation No 1355/2008, the defendants committed a sufficiently serious breach of their duty of due care and proper administration, resulting in a loss to the applicant for which compensation is not otherwise available, since there is no provision under the relevant national rules on import duties for interest to be paid on the amount of any difference in favour of the person liable to pay import duties, from the time of payment.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 350, p. 35).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/20

Action brought on 24 April 2014 — Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-258/14)

2014/C 223/24

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: L. Delvaux, Agent, and P.-E. Partsch, A. Steichen, D. Waelbroeck, lawyers, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well founded;

— annul the Commission decision of 24 March 2014 requiring Luxembourg to provide information relating to the practice of issuing anticipatory decisions in tax matters;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 1986 final by which it directed the applicant, pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation No 659/1999, (1) to provide a complete list of anticipatory decisions made in 2010, 2011 and 2012 in favour of Luxembourg undertakings belonging to a group or legal structure involving one or more undertakings located outside the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10 of Regulation No 659/1999 and of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as the Commission does not have the minimum amount of information required to justify the requests for information set out in the injunction, since its investigative powers are conditional upon its being in prior possession of sufficient factual and objective information, capable of giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of misconduct. The applicant argues that the Commission is making a ‘speculative request for information’ which is incompatible with the rights of the defence.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as (i) the information that the Commission already has in its possession is unrelated to the nature and scope of the information requested from the applicant and (ii) the injunction to provide information goes beyond what is appropriate and necessary for the achievement of the Commission’s objectives.

3. Third plea in law, alleging failure to give sufficient reasons, as the Commission has neither explained the reasons for the contested injunction nor clearly indicated the presumed facts that it intends to investigate.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 4 and 5 TEU and failure to respect the competence of the Member States in matters of direct taxation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/28

Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Compagnie des fromages & Richesmonts v OHIM — Grupo Lactalis Iberia (Representation of a red and white chessboard)

(Case T-327/14)

2014/C 235/38

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie des fromages & Richesmonts (Puteaux, France) (represented by: T. Mollet-Vieville and T. Cuche, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Lactalis Iberia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Find that Community trade mark No 6 0 59 687 is valid for the designation of cheeses;

— In consequence, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 March 2014 in its entirety in so far as it ruled that Community trade mark No 6 0 59 687 is invalid;

— In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 March 2014 in its entirety in so far as it ruled that Community trade mark No 6 0 59 687 is invalid for the designation of cheeses;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market 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: Representation of a red and white chessboard

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Grupo Lactalis Iberia, SA

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds provided for in Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and declaration of invalidity of the mark in question

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in fact and in law (infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009; infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/29

Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Helbrecht v OHIM — Lenci Calzature (SportEyes)

(Case T-333/14)

2014/C 235/39

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Helbrecht (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lenci Calzature SpA (Turchetto-Montecarlo, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 February 2014 in Case R 830/2013-5;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Lenci Calzature SpA, if it should intervene in these proceedings, 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 ‘SportEyes’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 7 5 04 525

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lenci Calzature SpA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative marks including the word elements ‘EYE SPORT EYE’, ‘EYE fashion EYE’ and ‘EYE’ for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/18

Action brought on 14 April 2014 — CBM Creative Brands Marken v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (TRECOLORE)

(Case T-228/14)

2014/C 245/25

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, M. Grundmann and N. Kerger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (Rome, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 January 2014 in Case R 594/2013-1 in so far as the First Board of Appeal upheld the decision of the opposition division rejecting the Application No 009 877 391 in regard of the goods in classes 18 and 25 and in regard of the services ‘Retail services, including via websites and teleshopping, in relation to clothing, footwear, headgear, sunglasses, precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, jewellery, precious stones, horological and chronometric instruments, leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials, animal skins, hides, trunks and travelling bags, bags, handbags, wallets, purses, key cases, rucksacks, pouches, umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks, whips, harness and saddlery’ of class 35;

— Dismiss the opposition against Application No 009 877 391 in its entirety;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘TRECOLORE’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 877 391

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The community and national word and figurative mark ‘FRECCE TRICOLORI’, for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 28 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/14

Action brought on 28 March 2014 — Victor International/OHIM — Ovejero Jiménez and Becerra Guibert (VICTOR)

(Case T-204/14)

2014/C 245/20

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Victor International GmbH (Elmshorn, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J. Plate, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gregorio Ovejero Jiménez and María Luisa Cristina Becerra Guibert (Alicante, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2014 in Case R 2208/2012-2 insofar as the opposition was upheld;

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

— Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘VICTOR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 28 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 8 4 09 963

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gregorio Ovejero Jiménez and María Luisa Cristina Becerra Guibert

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Several national figurative marks containing the word element ‘Victoria’ for goods and services in Classes 25 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in combination with Article 42(2) and (4) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) and (4) of the Regulation No 2868/95; infringement of Article 15(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
1.

First plea, alleging an error of law in so far as the grounds given for maintaining the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant are not sufficient.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/48

Action brought on 28 May 2014 — August Storck v OHIM (2good)

(Case T-366/14)

2014/C 253/63

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Rohr, A. Richter, P. Goldenbaum and T. Melchert, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 February 2014 in case R 996/2013-1;

— order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of the word mark ‘2good’ for goods in Class 30 — International registration No 1 1 33 636

Decision of the Examiner: The application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/44

Action brought on 27 May 2014 — Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia v OHIM — Accelerate (COLOMBIANO COFFEE HOUSE)

(Case T-359/14)

2014/C 253/59

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia (Bogotá, Colombia) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Accelerate s.a.l. (Beirut, Lebanon)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— alter the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 so that it declares that the conditions for the application of the relative ground for invalidity in Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 2007/2009, or the absolute ground for invalidity in Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 or the ground for invalidity provided for in Article 14 of Regulation No 510/2006 are satisfied in the present case; and in relation to all the goods and services against which the application for a declaration of invalidity is directed;

— or, in the alternative, annul the contested decision as regards the rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the goods ‘rice, tapioca, sago; Flour and preparations made from cereals; bread, pastry and confectionery; edible ices; Honey; treacle; Yeast, baking powder; salt, mustard; Vinegar, sauces (condiments); Spices; Ice’ in Class 30 and the ‘Services for providing food and drink; Temporary accommodation’ in Class 43;

— and, in any event, order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark with word elements ‘COLOMBIANO COFFEE HOUSE’ for goods and services in Classes 30 and 43 — Community trade mark No 4 6 35 553

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Accelerate s.a.l.

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Protected Geographical Indication ‘Café de Colombia’

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 14 of Regulation No 510/2006;

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 13 of Regulation No 510/2006;

— Breach of a procedural requirement through failure to state reasons;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(k) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/26

Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Roca Sanitario v OHIM — Villeroy & Boch (Taps)

(Case T-334/14)

2014/C 261/49

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Roca Sanitario, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Villeroy & Boch AG (Mettlach, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 February 2014, in Case R 812/2012-3;

— make an order for costs against OHIM and, as the case may be, the intervener if the latter enters an appearance and contests the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design of a tap — Community design registration number No 1 264 568-0004

Proprietor of the Community design: Applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: Villeroy & Boch AG

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Lack of novelty and of individual character compared with its own design for a tap (No 00 584 560-0004)

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) of the same regulation.