ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 359/9

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2013 — Dimian v OHIM — Bayer Design Fritz Bayer (Baby Bambolina)

(Case T-581/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark Baby Bambolina - Earlier unregistered national trade mark Bambolina - Relative ground for refusal - No use in trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 359/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dimian AG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: P. Pozzi and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bayer Design Fritz Bayer GmbH & Co. KG (Michelau, Germany) (represented by: J. Pröll, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 August 2011 (Case R 1822/2010-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Dimian AG and Bayer Design Fritz Bayer GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dimian AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/32

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Italmobiliare v Commission

(Case T-305/11) (1)

((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Principle of sound administration - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality))

2014/C 135/39

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italmobiliare SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented initially by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti, L. Nascimbene, G. Rizza and M. Piergiovanni, and subsequently by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti, L. Nascimbene and G. Rizza, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Gencarelli, L. Malferrari, É. Gippini Fournier and C. Hödlmayer, and subsequently by: L. Malferrari, É. Gippini Fournier and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and M. Malaguti, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2364 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Italmobiliare SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/22

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — Oetker Nahrungsmittel v OHIM (La qualité est la meilleure des recettes)

(Case T-570/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark La qualité est la meilleure des recettes - Mark constituted by an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 93/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: F. Graf von Stosch, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2011 (Case R 1798/2010-G) concerning an application for registration of word sign La qualité est la meilleure des recettes as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/30

Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2014 — Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission

(Case T-401/11 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Non-contractual liability - Damage sustained by the close relatives of the deceased official - Damage sustained by the official before his death - Respective jurisdictions of the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal - Rule of correspondence between the claim for compensation and the complaint against the decision dismissing that claim))

2014/C 292/36

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, acting on his own behalf and as the legal representative of the heirs of Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, his son, former official of the European Commission (Kerkhove Avelgem, Belgium) (represented by: initially F. Di Gianni, R. Antonini, G. Coppo and A. Scalini, and subsequently by F. Di Gianni, G. Coppo and A. Scalini, lawyers)

Respondent: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, B. Eggers and L. Pignataro-Nolin, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case F-50/09 Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case F-50/09 Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission;

2. Refers Case F-50/09 to the General Court, acting in exercise of its jurisdiction as a court of first instance, under Articles 268 TFEU and 340 TFEU;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/25

Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 — Eni v OHIM — Emi (IP) (ENI)

(Case T-599/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ENI - Earlier Community figurative mark EMI - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Partial refusal of registration))

2014/C 212/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: D. De Simone and G. Orsoni, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: C. Negro and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Emi (IP) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2011 (Case R 2439/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Emi (IP) Ltd and Eni SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Eni SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 380/6

Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — Gold East Paper and Gold Huasheng Paper v Council

(Case T-443/11) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of coated fine paper originating in China - Market economy treatment - Time-limit for adopting the MET decision - Diligent and impartial examination - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of sound administration - Burden of proof - Injury - Determination of the profit margin - Definition of the product concerned - Community industry - Causal link))

2014/C 380/07

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd (Jiangsu, China), and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co. Ltd (Jiangsu) (represented by: V. Akritidis, Y. Melin and F. Crespo, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted initially by G. Berrisch, A. Polcyn, lawyers, and by N. Chesaites, Barrister, and subsequently by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and by S. Gubel, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents), Cepifine AISBL (Brussels, Belgium), Sappi Europe SA (Brussels), Burgo Group SpA (Altavilla Vicentina, Italy), and Lecta SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and W. Berg, lawyers)

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 451/2011 of 6 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of coated fine paper originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 128, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co. Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union, Cepifine AISBL, Sappi Europe SA, Burgo Group SpA and Lecta SA;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/26

Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2014 — ONP and Others v Commission

(Case T-90/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - French market for clinical laboratory tests - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Association of undertakings - Professional body - Subject of the inspection and the enquiry - Conditions for the application of Article 101 TFEU - Infringement by object - Minimum price and barriers to the development of groups of laboratories - Single and continuous infringement - Proof - Errors of assessment of fact and errors of law - Amount of the fine - Section 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2015/C 034/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Ordre national des pharmaciens (ONP) (Paris, France); Conseil national de l’Ordre des pharmaciens (CNOP) (Paris); and Conseil central de la section G de l’Ordre national des pharmaciens (CCG) (Paris) (represented by: O. Saumon, L. Defalque, T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, C. Giolito, B. Mongin and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Labco (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, M. Coppet and B. Dederichs, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 8952 final of 8 December 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the [TFEU] (Case 39510 — Labco v ONP), and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fine

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on the Ordre national des pharmaciens (ONP), the Conseil national de l’Ordre des pharmaciens (CNOP) and the Conseil central de la section G de l’Ordre national des pharmaciens (CCG) in Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2010) 8952 final of 8 December 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the [TFEU] (Case 39510 — Labco v ONP) at EUR 4,75 million;

2. Dismisses the application for the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and one-tenth of those incurred by the ONP, the CNOP and the CCG;

4. Orders the ONP, the CNOP and the CCG to bear nine-tenths of their own costs;

5. Orders Labco to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/34

Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — South Pacific Management (Manea Spa)

(Case T-611/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Manea Spa - Earlier Benelux word and figurative marks SPA and earlier Benelux word mark LES THERMES DE SPA - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 146/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: South Pacific Management (Papeete, Tahiti, France) (represented by: S. de La Marnierre and E. Landon, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2011 (joined Cases R 1176/2010-1 and R 1886/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and South Pacific Management.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 September 2011 (joined Cases R 1176/2010-1 and R 1886/2010-1);

2. Orders OHIM and South Pacific Management to each bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV.

(1) OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/29

Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2015 — Veloss International and Attimedia v Parliament

(Case T-667/11) (1)

((Public service contracts - Supply of Greek translation services for the Parliament - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Obligation to state reasons - Non-contractual liability))

(2015/C 065/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Veloss International (Brussels, Belgium) and Attimedia SA (Brussels) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller, L. Darie and P. Biström, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament to select, in second place, the tender submitted by the applicants in response to the call for tenders No EL/2011/EU ‘Translation into Greek’ (OJ 2011, S 56-090374), communicated to the applicants by letter of 18 October 2011, and all related decisions taken by the Parliament, and second, for damages for the loss allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 18 October 2011 to select, in second position, the tender submitted by Veloss International SA and Attimedia SA in call for tenders EL/2011/EU for the provision of Greek translation services;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/33

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Cargolux Airlines v Commission

(Case T-39/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cargolux Airlines International SA (Sandweiler, Luxembourg) (represented initially by J. Joshua, Barrister, and G. Goeteyn, Solicitor, and subsequently by G. Goeteyn and T. Soames, Solicitors, C. Rawnsley, Barrister, and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. Khan, S. Noë and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents, and by O. Jones and subsequently by S. Love, Barristers, and represented subsequently by N. Khan and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Articles 1 to 5 of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as they concern Cargolux Airlines International SA;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Cargolux Airlines International.

(1) OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/15

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Polytetra v OHIM — EI du Pont de Nemours (POLYTETRAFLON)

(Case T-660/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark POLYTETRAFLON - Earlier Community word mark TEFLON - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Final product incorporating a component - Use of the earlier mark in respect of the final products of third parties - Duty to state reasons))

(2015/C 262/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polytetra GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2011 (Case R 2005/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between EI du Pont de Nemours and Company and Polytetra GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 September 2011 (Case R 2005/2010-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Polytetra GmbH;

3. Orders EI du Pont de Nemours and Company to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/37

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — British Airways v Commission

(Case T-48/11) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: British Airways plc (Harmondsworth, United Kingdom) (represented initially by K. Lasok QC, R. O’Donoghue, Barrister, and B. Louveaux, Solicitor, and subsequently by R. O’Donoghue, B. Louveaux and J. Turner QC)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. Khan, S. Noë and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents, and initially by B. Doherty, and subsequently by A. Bates, Barristers, and represented subsequently by N. Khan and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by A. Bates)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as, in that decision, the European Commission, first, considered that British Airways plc (i) participated in the refusal to pay commission, (ii) infringed Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport between 22 January 2001 and 1 October 2001, and (iii) participated in infringements of those provisions for freight services performed from Hong Kong (China), Japan, India, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea and Brazil, and, secondly, imposed a fine on it;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of British Airways.

(1) OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 233/9

Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 — Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer v OHIM

(Case T-243/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark ALOHA 100 % NATURAL - Earlier national word mark ALOA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 233/15

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG (formerly International Brands Germany GmbH & Co. KG) (Warstein, Germany) (represented by: B. Hein and M.-H. Hoffman, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, then by A. Schifko, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Stuffer SpA (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2012 (Case R 1058/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Stuffer SpA and Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG, formerly International Brands Germany GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 189/21

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — Rocket Dog Brands LLC v OHIM — Julius-K9 (JULIUS K9)

(Case T-231/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark JULIUS K9 - Earlier Community figurative marks K9 - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 189/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rocket Dog Brands LLC (Hayward, United-States) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Julius-K9 bt (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 March 2012 (Case R 1124/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Rocket Dog Brands LLC and Julius-K9 bt.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders Rocket Dog Brands LLC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.