ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/36

Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN)

(Case T-67/15)

(2015/C 118/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Polo Club (Gassin, France) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN’ — Application for registration No 10 525 137

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 in Case R 1882/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and register the trademark applied for in its entirety;

— order OHIM to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/39

Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Alsharghawi v Council

(Case T-66/15)

(2015/C 146/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bashir Saleh Bashir Alsharghawi (Johannesburg, South Africa) (represented by: É. Moutet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that the Council has failed to comply with its obligations under the FEU Treaty by not reviewing his situation;

— Order the Council to review his situation;

— Order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that by not acting on his application for review, the Council failed to comply with its obligations according to the legislation and case-law of the European Union.
3.

Third plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU The applicants also submit that the decision infringes Article 107(3) TFEU and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. In this respect, the defendant should not have assessed the facts examined by it on the basis of its Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection and Energy 2014-2020, which were published only on 28 June 2014. Instead, it should have applied the guidelines published in 2008. Taking the 2008 standard as a basis, the defendant would not have been entitled to reach a conclusion other than that the alleged aid was compatible with the internal market.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/34

Action brought on 25 March 2015 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Theralab (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA)

(Case T-144/15)

(2015/C 171/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: L'Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Sena Mioludo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Theralab — Produtos Farmacêuticos e Nutracêuticos, Lda (Viseu, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA’ — Application for registration No 11 074 391

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2015 in Case R 1097/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 26 February 2014 in Opposition B 002139916;

— reject the opposition B 002139916;

— accept the community Trademark Application No 011074391 ‘VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA (+fig.)’ in its entirety;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 16 (Freedom to conduct a business), Article 20 (Equality before the law) and Article 21 (Non-discrimination) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as a result of arbitrary difference in treatment The applicant alleges that, although the European Commission provided for transitional measures and special rules for other types of organic aquaculture in the implementing regulation, it arbitrarily failed to extend the transitional period expiring on 1 January 2015 laid down in Article 95(11) of Regulation No 889/2008 (1). The European Commission was aware that, although the release of the eggs from the organically kept females needed to be triggered by means of hormones, iridescent sharks were, in fact, kept in wholly organic conditions from the time of spawning. Since this is not consistent with the prospective general rules of EU law on aquaculture and other methods of triggering spawning are still in the course of development, the transitional period must be extended.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/22

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council

(Case T-153/15)

(2015/C 190/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Mohamed Hamcho (Damascus, Syria) and Hamcho International (Damascus) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Order the production of the file in Case T-43/12;

— Reserve the applicants the right to reply and, on this occasion, to produce new documents and to call witnesses;

— Annul, in so far as these measures concern the applicants: — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/108 of 26 January 2015; — Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) No 2015/117 of 26 January 2015;

— Order the Council 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 in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-653/11 Jaber v Council (1).

(1) OJ 2012, C 58, p. 12.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the ECB applied an inappropriate criterion for the assessment of particular circumstances — The applicant asserts that the ECB based its decision as to whether, despite satisfying the size criterion, the applicant was to be classified as a less significant entity on grounds of particular circumstances under the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) read in conjunction with Article 70(1) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 (2) on four different and mutually irreconcilable assessment criteria. Each of those criteria was in itself erroneous. — The applicant further asserts that for the existence of particular circumstances under Article 70(1) of Regulation No 468/2014 it is decisive that there were ‘specific and factual circumstances’ that made the classification of an entity as significant, and thereby necessarily subject to the ECB’s central supervision, ‘inappropriate’. According to the applicant, the classification of an entity as significant merely on the basis of its size was ‘inappropriate’, within the meaning of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 468/2014, where such a classification was not necessary for the attainment of the objectives of Regulation No 1024/2013. Supervision by the competent national authorities with macroprudential supervision by the ECB would have sufficed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/43

Action brought on 21 April 2015 — Bodegas Williams & Humbert v OHIM — Central Hisumer (Botanic Williams & Humbert)

(Case T-193/15)

(2015/C 198/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Williams & Humbert, SA (Cádiz, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Central Hisumer, SL (Orihuela, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in blue, grey, white and black containing the word elements ‘Botanic Williams & Humbert’ — Application for registration No 11 184 819

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 in Case R 594/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare as not being in accordance with Regulation EC No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, the decision of 9 December 2010 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM, in Case R 594/2014-4, dismissing the administrative appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 20 December 2013, made in opposition proceedings No B 2 128 026, and thereby refusing registration of Community Trademark No 11.184.819 BOTANIC WILLIAMS & HUMBERT LONDON DRY GIN, composite mark in Class 33;

— allow registration of the composite Community trade mark No 11.184.819 BOTANIC WILLIAMS & HUMBERT LONDON DRY GIN, in Class 33, as the prohibition on registration provided for in Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 does not apply;

— order OHIM, and if appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/46

Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Aldi v OHIM — Miquel Alimentació Grup (Gourmet)

(Case T-212/15)

(2015/C 198/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: C. Fürsen, N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miquel Alimentació Grup, SA (Vilamalla, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark including the word element ‘Gourmet’ — Application No 9 310 269

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2015 in Case R 314/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 228/20

Action brought on 27 April 2015 — Morton’s of Chicago v OHIM — Mortons the Restaurant (MORTON’S)

(Case T-223/15)

(2015/C 228/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Morton’s of Chicago, Inc. (Chicago, United States) (represented by: J. Moss, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mortons the Restaurant Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘MORTON’S’ — Community trade mark registration No 3 951 291

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 February 2015 in Case R 46/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the Respondent to pay the Proprietor’s costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/39

Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — toom Baumarkt (Super-Samstag)

(Case T-213/15)

(2015/C 205/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter and A. Berger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: toom Baumarkt GmbH (Cologne, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Super-Samstag’ — Community trade mark No 10 304 178

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 February 2015 in Case R 657/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 37(b)(i) and (iv) of Regulation No 2868/95;

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to identify a proper legal base for the Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 (the ‘Decision’) and the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 (the ‘Regulation’) (together the ‘Contested Measures’). Article 29 of the Treaty on the European Union is not a proper legal base for the Decision because the complaint made against the applicant did not identify him as an individual having undermined democracy in Ukraine or deprived the Ukrainian people of the benefits of the sustainable development of their country (within the meaning of Article 23 TEU and the general provisions in Article 21(2) TEU). As the Decision was invalid, the Council could not rely on Article 215(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to enact the Regulation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 228/17

Action brought on 20 March 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki/Parliament

(Case T-136/15)

(2015/C 228/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 13 February 2015 (302534) of the vice president of the European Parliament rejecting the confirmatory application of the applicant for access to European Parliament documents relating to all requests for quotation in all lots of Call for Tenders No ITS08 — External service provision for IT services 2008S/149-199622 (pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents) and confirming the decision of the Parliament’s Secretary General dated 18 December 2014, and

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First, the applicant argues that the Parliament did not proceed to an individual assessment of the requested documents and refused even partial access to the requested documents, in breach of article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1).

2. Second, the applicant contends that the justifications provided for by the Parliament with regards to the protection of public security, privacy of the individual, commercial interests of a natural or legal person and decision making progress should be rejected as wholly unfounded.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001, L 145, p. 43).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/35

Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Ferrovial and others v Commission

(Case T-252/15)

(2015/C 245/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Ferrovial, SA (Madrid, Spain), Ferrovial Servicios, SA (Madrid, Spain), Amey UK plc (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez and M. Linares Gil, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

— annul European Commission Decision C (2014) 7280 of 15 October 2014, on State aid SA 35550 (13/C) (ex 13/NN) (ex 12/CP) implemented by Spain;

— in the alternative annul Article 4(2) of that Decision, and

— order the defendant institution to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in this case is the same as that in Case T-826/14, Spain v Commission, and Case T-12/15, Banco de Santander and Santusa v Commission.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU on the ground of failure to state reasons.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, since, according to the applicants the measure under assessment does not meet the criteria to constitute state aid.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU, Article 1(c) 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, and Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004, implementing Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, since the measure under assessment does not constitute new, unlawful and incompatible aid.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging the invalidity of Article 4(2) of the Third Decision on the ground of infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999, by failing to limit the recovery order in the same terms as the first two decisions did (acquisitions earlier than 21 December 2007).
—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/34

Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Zhang v OHIM — K & L Ruppert Stiftung (Anna Smith)

(Case T-295/15)

(2015/C 262/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Yongyu Zhang (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Steinert, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG (Weilheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Yongyu Zhang

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Anna Smith’ — Registration No 11 981 446

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 February 2015 in Case R 1559/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— admit, after annulment of the contested decision relating to opposition proceedings No B 2 264 227 on the application for registration No 11 981 446 of 12 July 2013, the word mark Anna Smith as a Community trade mark for Classes 18 and 25, as per the application.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/37

Action brought on 24 June 2015 — Josel v OHIM — Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland (NN)

(Case T-333/15)

(2015/C 262/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Josel, SL (Barcelona, 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: Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

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 figurative mark containing the word element ‘NN’ — Application for registration No 1 066 097

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2015 in Case R 1531/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, insofar as, in dismissing in part the appeal brought by the applicant for the trade mark, it upholds the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting opposition B 1 887 887 and granting Community trade mark (international registration) No 1 066 097 ‘NN’, Class 36, (word mark);

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

Plea in law
Case T-347/15: Action brought on 18 June 2015 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council

Action brought on 18 June 2015 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council

(Case T-347/15)

Parties

Applicant: Uganda Commercial Impex (UCI) Ltd (Kampala, Uganda) (represented by: A. Meskarian, S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, K. Mittal, Solicitors, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/620 ( 1 ) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/614 ( 2 ) insofar as they apply to UCI (including the entry of UCI in entry b) 9 of the Annex to the Decision and the Regulation);

— insofar as necessary to declare Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 (as amended) inapplicable to UCI; and

— order the Council to pay UCI’s costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to undertake any or any adequate independent assessment of UCI’s designation, as it was required to do.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that in any event, the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and/or UCI’s designation is unlawful because the criteria for designation are not met in UCI’s case.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that UCI’s procedural rights, in particular its rights of defence and rights to effective judicial protection have been violated, and the Council has failed to give adequate reasons.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that UCI’s designation is any event in breach of its fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality.

( 1 ) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/620 of 20 April 2015 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 102, 21.4.2015, p. 43).

( 2 ) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/614 of 20 April 2015 implementing Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 102, 21.4.2015, p. 10).
Case T-309/15 P: Appeal brought on 5 June 2015 by CW against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 March 2015 in Case F-124/13 CW v Parliament

Appeal brought on 5 June 2015 by CW against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 March 2015 in Case F-124/13 CW v Parliament

(Case T-309/15 P)

Parties

Appellant: CW (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare the appeal admissible;

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— annul the contested decision and the decision rejecting the complaint;

— award damages; and

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal distorted evidence and erred in law in finding that, in the decision rejecting the complaint, the appointing authority sought to endorse the substance of the decision refusing assistance.