ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/22

Action brought on 5 June 2013 — Silicium España Laboratorios/OHIM — LLR-G5 (LLRG5)

(Case T-306/13)

(2013/C 226/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Silicium España Laboratorios, SL (Vila-Seca, Spain) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LLR-G5 Ltd (Castlebar, Ireland)

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 March 7, 2013 (Case R 383/2012-1), to the extent it declares Community trade mark No 3384625, ‘LLRG5’, invalid on the grounds that it was applied for in bad faith;

— Confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of 20 December, 2011 in Case 4174 C;

— Order the OHIM to bear its own costs and Silicium’s costs incurred in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘LLRG5’ — Community trade mark registration No 3 384 625

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the invalidity of the contested CTM

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the violations below taken together were so extensive as to amount to a flagrant violation of a superior law, as follows: — At the time the applicant was deprived of its bank deposits there were no ‘conditions provided for by law’ in place in the acquis dealing with deprivation of bank deposits contrary to the Charter and Protocol; — The applicant was deprived of their deposits without ‘fair compensation being paid in good time’ contrary to article 17 of the Charter and article 1 of the Protocol; — Deprivation of deposits is prima facie unlawful unless ‘subject to the principle of proportionality… it is necessary and genuinely meets objectives of general interest recognised by the EU or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.’ (2); — The competing public interest in preventing panic and a run on the banking system, short and medium term, was not considered in evaluating the public interest under Article 17 of the Charter and Article 1 of the Protocol; — The aim was not to damage or penalise Cyprus but to benefit it and the euro area by providing stability support and thereby alleviating not destabilising its financial institutions and economic viability; and — There was no relationship of proportionality of the interference to a legitimate aim since by Article 3 of the ESM Treaty 2012 the genuine objective was ‘to mobilise funding and provide stability support under strict conditionality… to the benefit of ESM Members which are experiencing or are threatened by severe financial problems, if indispensable to safeguard the euro area as a whole and of its member state’ without paralysing its economy.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/32

Action brought on 17 June 2013 — Endoceutics/OHIM — Merck (FEMIVIA)

(Case T-324/13)

2013/C 252/53

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Endoceutics, Inc. (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 15 April 2013, in Case R 1021/2012-4;

— Reject the opposition of the other party and allow registration of the Community trade mark applied for, namely the application for the mark FEMIVIA under application No. 9 386 343;

— Order the other party to pay the applicant’s costs on the appeal and regarding 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 ‘FEMIVIA’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 9 386 343

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: Community trade mark of the word mark ‘FEMIBION’, for goods in class 5 and International registration with effect in the European Union for the figurative mark in black and white ‘femibion’ for goods of classes 5 29 and 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the CTM application in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that DIGIT has accepted the offer of another tenderer notwithstanding that the abnormally low price proposal should have led to its elimination from the tendering procedure. In this regard, the applicant submits that this claim cannot be undermined by DIGIT's claim that it scrutinized that offer in light of the rules on abnormally low offers. A generic reference to applicable legislation is not a substitute for a proper statement of reasons as to why — in light of its analysis — DIGIT nonetheless decided not to eliminate that offer from the tender procedure. As a subsidiary part of this plea in law, the applicant alleges that the price proposed by another tenderer in its offer is unrealistic and cannot correspond to an offer that complies with the tender requirements. In this regard, BT requests the General Court to appoint an independent expert to determine whether the offer in question in fact complies with certain tendering specifications.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/48

Action brought on 16 July 2013 — Boehringer Ingelheim International/OHIM — Lehning entreprise (ANGIPAX)

(Case T-368/13)

2013/C 260/85

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and D. Slopek, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lehning entreprise SARL (Sainte Barbe, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul OHIM’s Fifth Board of Appeal’s decision of 29 April 2013 in Case R 571/2012-5 insofar as it allowed registration of the mark ANGIPAX in respect of pharmaceutical and veterinarian products and preparations for health and medical care; fungicides; dietetic substances adapted for medical use; disinfectants; surgical dressings and materials for dressing, materials for stopping teeth, preparations for destroying vermin; food for babies; and

— Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, or — in the event that the other party before the Boards of Appeal intervenes on the side of the defendant — that they be borne jointly by the defendant and the intervener.

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 ‘ANGIPAX’ for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 8 952 401

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘ANTISTAX’ — Community trade mark registration No 2 498 343 for goods in classes 3, 5, 28 and 30

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 Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/38

Action brought on 1 July 2013 — Orange Business Belgium v Commission

(Case T-349/13)

2013/C 252/64

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Orange Business Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Schutyser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of DG DIGIT of the European Commission, notified to the applicant on 19 April 2013, rejecting the applicant's tender and awarding the contract to another tenderer;

— In the event at the time of the rendering of the judgment the Commission would have already signed the Trans European Services for Telematics between Administrations — new generation (‘TESTA-ng’) contract, declare that this contract is null and void; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the expenses for legal counsel incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the tendering specifications, Article 89(1) and Article 100(1) of the Financial Regulation 1605/2002 (1) (Article 102(1) and Article 113(1) of the Financial Regulation 966/2012) in particular the principles of transparency, equality and non-discrimination because a) some communicated evaluation rules were not applied, b) some communicated evaluation rules were wrong and others, not communicated, evaluation rules have been applied instead, and c) the method for the technical evaluation was not communicated prior to the submitting of the tenders.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principles of transparency and equal treatment of tenderers contained in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation 1605/2002 (Article 102(1) of the Financial Regulation 966/2012), which invalidate the contested decision because it held the offer of the another tenderer regular, despite fundamental non-compliant elements in breach of the technical requirements of the Tendering Specifications.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/23

Action brought on 30 July 2013 — Dosen v OHIM — Gramm (Nano-Pad)

(Case T-396/13)

2013/C 274/39

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Franko Dosen (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Losert, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thomas Gramm (Bremen, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 September 2011 (Ref: 4204 C) in the form of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 May 2013 in Case R 1981/2011-4.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘Nano-Pad’ for goods in Class 17 — Community trade mark No 8 228 421

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Franko Dosen

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for a declaration of invalidity was granted in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/21

Action brought on 1 August 2013 — SolarWorld and Solsonica v Commission

(Case T-393/13)

2013/C 274/36

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany) and Solsonica SpA (Cittaducale, Italy) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— Annul Article 1(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 (1) to the extent it delays until 6 August 2013 the application of the full provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules, cells and wafers originating in or consigned from China;

— Order the customs authorities of the Member States to apply the anti-dumping duty rates set out in Article 1(2)(ii) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 as from 6 June 2013;

— Order the Commission to pay to the applicants damages to the extent the antidumping duty rates set out in Article 1(2)(ii) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 have not been applied as from 6 June 2013; and

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

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 adoption of Article 1(2)(i) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 infringes Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts when introducing the phasing-in period of the provisional anti-dumping measures by virtue of Article 1(2)(i) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission manifestly and seriously violated its duties of care and good administration by adopting Article 1(2)(i) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted unlawfully by adopting Article 1(2)(i) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 and thereby caused damage to the applicants for which the EU is liable under Article 340(2) of the TFEU

(1) Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 of 4 June 2013 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China and amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 making these imports originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ 2013 L 152, p. 5)

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 304/23

Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission

(Case T-461/13)

2013/C 304/41

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is brought against the decision of the Commission of 19 June 2013, on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/010, ex CP 163/2009) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas (other than Castilla-La Mancha). That decision found that that aid was partly incompatible with the internal market and therefore ordered that it be recovered.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five 11 pleas in law.

1. First plea: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in the absence, in the present case, of any economic advantage granted to an entity engaged in an economic activity, of selectivity of that measure and of distortion of competition.

2. Second plea: infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU, and Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, given that it has not been established that the principle of technological neutrality was breached.

3. Third plea: infringement of the procedure in State aid cases, having regard, in the present case, to its excessive duration, to the failure to take into account evidence that was presented, as well as lack of consistency and objectivity during the appraisal.

4. The fourth plea, in the alternative: infringement of the principles of legal certainty, equality, proportionality and subsidiarity, and absence of the obligation to recover the resulting aid, in so far as Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) waives that recovery requirement where the general principles of European Union law have been disregarded.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/28

Action brought on 31 July 2013 — Orange v Commission

(Case T-402/13)

2013/C 313/53

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Orange (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Gunther and A. Giraud, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 25 and 27 June 2013 addressed to France Télécom, Orange and all the companies directly or indirectly controlled by them, ordering them to undergo an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation No 1/2003. (1) Those decisions were taken in the context of proceedings under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement concerning the sector providing internet connectivity services (Case AT.40090).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of necessity and proportionality, in that the Commission ordered an inspection in relation to practices which were very similar to those covered by a decision delivered by the French competition authority only nine months earlier, even though the French competition authority found no anti-competitive conduct on the part of Orange. The applicant claims that, at the time of the inspection, the Commission did not seek additional information to that which it already had at its disposal, something which it ought to have done in accordance with the case-law in this area.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are arbitrary, in that the Commission does not have sufficiently serious and detailed grounds for taking a measure as intrusive as an inspection.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/31

Action brought on 26 August 2013 — Klaes v OHIM — Klaes Kunststoffe (Klaes)

(Case T-453/13)

2013/C 313/59

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Horst Klaes GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany) (represented by: B. Dix, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH (Neuenrade, Germany)

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 of 6 June 2013 (Case R 1206/2012-1) and reject the opposition against the applicant’s Community trade mark application (No 9545096).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Klaes’ for goods in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 545 096

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark in blue ‘Klaes’ for services in Class 42

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) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/50

Action brought on 23 September 2013 — SolarWorld e.a. v Commission

(Case T-507/13)

2013/C 325/80

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany); Brandoni solare SpA (Castelfidardo, Italy); Global Sun Ltd (Sliema, Malta); Silicio Solar, SAU (Puertollano, Spain); and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— Annul Commission Decision 2013/423/EU of 2 August 2013 accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violated the applicants' right to a fair legal process and the principle of good administration, the applicants' rights of defence, and Articles 8(4) and 19(2) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1), as — The Commission reached an agreement with the Chinese government and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for Machinery and Equipment, on behalf of a large group of Chinese exporting producers, without making a proper and adequate disclosure of the key terms of the undertaking under discussion. — The Commission failed to give interested parties an opportunity to make timely and effective comments on the undertaking arrangement accepted by the contested decision.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and violation of Articles 6(1) and 8(1) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation, insofar as the contested decision deviates arbitrarily from the Commission's investigation findings and sets minimum import prices at levels that are manifestly inadequate to remove the injury to EU producers.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 101(1) TFEU insofar as the contested decision accepts and reinforces a horizontal price fixing arrangement and is therefore contrary to the TFEU requirement that competition not be distorted on the internal market.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 343, p.51)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/39

Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-441/13)

2013/C 325/64

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eyad Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

(1) OJ 2011 C 282, p.30.