ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

consequently, uphold the forms of order sought by the appellants at first instance and, accordingly, — annul the decisions to apply to the applicants the decision of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 13 December 2011 setting a salary progression capped at 2,8 % and the decision of the EIB’s Management Committee of 14 February 2012 establishing a merit grid entailing the loss of 1 % of salary, decisions that are contained in the salary slips of April 2012, and annul to the same extent all the decisions contained in subsequent salary slips; — accordingly, — order the defendant to pay the difference between the remuneration resulting from the aforementioned decisions of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 13 December 2011 and of the EIB’s Management Committee of 14 February 2012 and that paid in application of the preceding salary scheme, with interest on arrears to be added to that difference in remuneration with effect from 12 April 2012 and then on the 12th day of every month until full payment, the rate of interest being the ECB rate, increased by three percentage points; — order the defendant to pay damages for the loss suffered by reason of the loss of purchasing power, such loss being assessed equitably, and on a provisional basis, at 1,5 % of the monthly remuneration of each applicant; — order the EIB to pay all the costs;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/19

Action brought on 20 March 2014 — La Zaragozana/OHIM — Charles Cooper (GREEN'S)

(Case T-197/14)

2014/C 235/25

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: La Zaragozana, SA (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Charles Cooper Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should reject the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 January 2014 given in the case R 1284/2012-5.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Charles Cooper Ltd

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘GREEN’S’ for goods in Class 32 — Community trade mark application No 8 1 89 813

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘AMBAR-GREEN’

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was annulled

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/27

Action brought on 6 May 2014 — mobile.international v OHIM — Rezon (mobile.de)

(Case T-325/14)

2014/C 235/37

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: mobile.international GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

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 9 January 2014 in Case R 922/2013-1;

— order the defendant 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: the word mark ‘mobile.de’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark No 9 3 76 989

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: national figurative mark including the word elements ‘mobile’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and the case is referred back to the Cancellation Division

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 57 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of the rules on abuse of law in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/16

Action brought on 3 April 2014 — Klement v OHIM — Bullerjan (Form of an oven)

(Case T-211/14)

2014/C 245/22

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Toni Klement (Dippolddiswalde, Germany) (represented by: J. Weiser, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bullerjan GmbH (Isernhagen-Kirchhorst, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 January 2014 in Case R 927/2013-1, so that the appeal brought by the applicant is upheld and CTM 3 7 23 822 is revoked in its entirety;

— In the alternative, annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM, and as the case may be, the CTM proprietor/possible intervener to pay the costs for these proceedings and of the appeal procedure before OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Three-dimensional mark representing an oven for goods in Class 11 — Community trade mark registration No 3 7 23 822

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for revocation

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/21

Action brought on 28 April 2014 — Cyprus v OHIM (HALLOUMI)

(Case T-293/14)

2014/C 245/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 February 2014 given in Case R 1503/2013-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HALLOUMI’ for goods in Class 29 — Community trade mark application No 11 570 124

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/35

Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Davó Lledó v OHIM — Administradora y Franquicias América and Inversiones Ged (DoggiS)

(Case T-335/14)

2014/C 253/50

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: José-Manuel Davó Lledó (Cartagena, Spain) (represented by: J.V. Gil Martí, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Administradora y Franquicias América, SA and Inversiones Ged Ltda (Santiago de Chile, Chile)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General 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 13 March 2014 in Case R 1824/2013-1 and, accordingly, confirm the original decision of the Cancellation Division of 18 July 2013 rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by Administradora y Franquicias América, SA and Inversiones Ged Ltda in respect of Community trade mark No 8 8 94 826‘DoggiS’; order those undertakings to abide by that decision and all its effects; and make an express order for costs against the defendant and other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark including the word element ‘DoggiS’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30 and 43 — Community trade mark No 8 8 94 826

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Administradora y Franquicias América, SA and Inversiones Ged Ltda

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application for the trade mark was made in bad faith

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and annulled in their entirety both the decision of the Cancellation Division and the registration of the contested Community trade mark

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/56

Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Distribuidores y Transportistas de Productos Petrolíferos v Commission

(Case T-426/14)

2014/C 253/74

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Distribuidores y Transportistas de Productos Petrolíferos, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; and

— order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-392/14 Gutser v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/45

Action brought on 21 May 2014 — Švyturys-Utenos Alus v OHIM — Nordbrand Nordhausen (KISS)

(Case T-360/14)

2014/C 253/60

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Švyturys-Utenos Alus UAB (Utena, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Žabolienė and I. Lukauskienė, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH (Nordhausen, 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 17 March 2014 in Case R 1302/2013-4; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark KISS for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 20 565

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark CRISS for goods in Class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was annulled and the Community trade mark application rejected

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Rule 20(7)(c) in conjunction with Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 in conjunction with Article 55(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/33

Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Petropars and Others v Council

(Case T-370/14)

2014/C 261/58

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Petropars Ltd (Teheran, Iran); Petropars International FZE (Dubai, United Arab Emirates); and Petropars UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and Z. Burbeza, Solicitors, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the March 2014 Decision;

— annul the March 2014 Notice insofar as it applies to the applicants; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the criteria for listing set out in Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation No 267/2012 (1) or Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 (2) are not satisfied and that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that the criteria were met and remain met because the applicants are not owned or controlled by the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the criteria for listing are not met because the Council has not proved that NIOC financially supports the Iranian government.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the maintenance of the designation of the applicants is in any event in violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms, including their right to trade and to carry out their businesses and to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and/or is in violation of the principle of proportionality. The applicants further allege that the continued listing represents a breach of the precautionary principle and of the principles of environmental protection and the protection of human health and safety, as it is likely to cause significant damage to the health and safety of ordinary Iranian workers and the environment.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council breached the applicants’ rights of defence by failing to conduct a full and adequate review of the applicants’ designation and properly to consider the observations presented to it.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

(2) Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/58

Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Remolcadores Nosa Terra and Hospital Povisa v Commission

(Case T-432/14)

2014/C 253/78

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Remolcadores Nosa Terra, SA (Vigo, Spain); and Hospital Povisa, SA (Vigo) (represented by: J. Otero Novas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it orders the recovery of the benefits that, according to the contested decision, the applicant companies received as members of various Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs); and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Commission v Spain.

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following factual considerations:

1. The ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) constitutes an integrated whole, in which the various measures that make up that system — in themselves lawful or unlawful according to the Commission’s criteria — are essential to achieving the conclusion of naval construction contracts with Spanish shipyards.

2. Although the direct benefits characterised as unlawful by the Commission were granted to the participating EIGs, the entire system was conceived of and implemented so as to ensure that those benefits would be passed on to all the participants in the system: shipyards, EIGs, ship owners, organising banks and intermediary companies for various transactions.

3. The Commission, in its decision, ordered the State to recover the aid unlawfully granted, but only from the EIGs, thus excluding the other participants in the system from the burden of recovery.

4. The Commission failed to state reasons for its decision to exercise the option of recovery, or to explain why the burden of recovery should fall exclusively on the EIGs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/34

Action brought on 26 May 2014 — NICO v Council

(Case T-371/14)

2014/C 261/59

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (Pully, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Council decision contained in the letter of 14 March 2014, addressed to the lawyers of the applicant, concerning review of the list of designated persons and entities in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as amended by Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, and in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012, in so far as the contested decision constitutes a refusal to remove the applicant from the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures;

— join the present proceedings with the case T-6/13 in accordance with Article 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

— order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, alleging that the statement of grounds was insufficient and that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment.

The applicant argues that it is a not a subsidiary of Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO) Limited, as this company no longer exists in Jersey, and in any case the Council has not substantiated that even if the applicant were a subsidiary of Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO) Limited, this would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the objective pursued by the contested measures.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/25

Action brought on 7 May 2014 — Bankia/OHIM — Banco ActivoBank (Portugal) (Bankia)

(Case T-323/14)

2014/C 261/48

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bankia, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: F. De Barba, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Banco ActivoBank (Portugal), SA (Lisboa, Portugal)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Chamber of the Board of Appeal of 14 February 2014 in cases R 649/2013-2 and R 744/2013-2, so that the Community trade mark application no1 0 1 25 284‘BANKIA’ be granted for all the goods and services;

— Condemn the opponent and/or the OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant/appellant in connection with this appeal.

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 ‘Bankia’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 45 — Community trade mark application no1 0 1 25 284

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Banco ActivoBank (Portugal), SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘BANKY’ for services in Class 36

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal of BANKIA S.A. was dismissed and the appeal of Banco ActivoBank (Portugal), SA partially upheld, rejecting the contested trade mark for a wider range of services

Pleas in law: Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law and infringed the principles of burden of proof and presumption of innocence in asserting that Silec Cable was under a positive obligation to publicly distance itself from the alleged cartel.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/33

Action brought on 28 May 2014 — August Storck v OHIM — Chiquita Brands (Fruitfuls)

(Case T-367/14)

2014/C 261/57

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chiquita Brands LLC (Charlotte, United States)

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 March 2014 in Case R 1580/2013-5;

— Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant, and, should Chiquita Brands LLC intervene in the proceedings, order Chiquita Brands LLC to pay its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘Fruitfuls’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark registration No 5 014 519

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Chiquita Brands LLC

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The trade mark was revoked

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed the applicants' rights of defence and the general principle of equality of arms, by refusing to allow them to access potentially exculpatory evidence received by the Commission after the notification of its Statement of Objections.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/53

Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Derivados del Flúor v Commission

(Case T-500/14)

2014/C 282/69

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Derivados del Flúor, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. De Juan Casadevall, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— in the alternative, if the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (STLS) is held to be unlawful State aid, order recovery only until the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision initiating the formal investigation, namely, 21 September 2011; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant contests Commission Decision C (2013) 4426 final of 17 July 2013 on the tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements, also known as the Spanish Tax Lease System (State Aid SA.21233 C/2011 (ex NN/2011, ex CP 137/2006))

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera v Commission and Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

The applicant alleges, in particular: incorrect application in the present case of Articles 17, 18 and 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU; inexistence of a competitive tax advantage; incorrect identification of the beneficiary of the State aid; compatibility of the State aid with the interior market; misuse of powers by the Commission; and breach of the principles of equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations.