ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/44

Action brought on 23 December 2008 — DVB Project v OHIM — Eurotel (DVB)

(Case T-578/08)

(2009/C 55/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: DVB Project (Le Grand Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by: W. Pors, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eurotel SpA (Milan, Italy)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 October 2008 in case R 1387/2007-2; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The mark ‘DVB’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 38

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismissal of the request for invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that a monopoly on the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity would seriously impair the business activities of traders in the field of telecommunication; Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 51(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to analyse the merits of the issue of acquired distinctiveness raised by the applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/51

Order of the General Court of 12 April 2010 — Bulur Giyim Sanayi ve Ticaret Sirketi v OHIM — Denim (VIGOSS)

(Case T-431/08) (1)

2010/C 148/84

Language of the case: English

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/47

Action brought on 14 January 2009 — Özdemir v OHIM — Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (James Jones)

(Case T-11/09)

(2009/C 55/85)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rahmi Özdemir (Dreieich, Germany) (represented by: M. Heinrich, I. Hoes, C. Schröder, K. von Werder and J. Wittenberg, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (Brande, Denmark)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 November 2008 in case R 858/2007-2;

— Dismiss the opposition of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of 25 January 2005 against the application for registration of the Community trade mark — application No 3 493 137; and

— Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘James Jones’, for goods in class 25

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: Community trade mark registration No 1 107 747 of the word mark ‘Jack & Jones’ for goods in classes 3, 18 and 25; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 063 437 of the word mark ‘Jack Jones’ for goods in class 25; Benelux trade mark registration No 474 622 of the word mark ‘Jack Jones’ for goods in class 25; Denmark trade mark registration No VR 1990 06569 of the word mark ‘Jack & Jones’ for goods in class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; infringement of Article 43(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as there has been no proof of use submitted before the Board of Appeal for United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 063 437.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/45

Action brought on 2 January 2009 — Lind v Commission

(Case T-5/09)

(2009/C 69/99)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Brigit Lind (Greve, Denmark) (represented by: I. Anderson, advocate)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— order the Commission to pay to the applicant, individually, the sum of 50 000 EUR, or such other sum as the Court may consider just and equitable, for shock and distress experienced by her from her brother's suffering and wrongful death as result of the Commission's capricious and unlawful refusal to enforce the implementation of medical monitoring provisions of Directive 96/29 in the case of the former workers who participated in the radiological emergency at Thule;

— order the Commission to pay to the estate of John Erling Nochen, as represented by the applicant, the sum of 250 000 EUR, or such other sum as the Court may consider just and equitable, for pain and suffering, including the awareness of the curtailment of life, from 2006 until his death in 2008, as result of the Commission's capricious and unlawful refusal to enforce the implementation of medical monitoring provisions of Directive 96/29 in the case of the former workers who participated in the radiological emergency at Thule and the sum of 6 000 EUR, for funeral expenses;

— order the Commission to pay reasonable legal costs and disbursements incurred by the applicant in bringing the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant is bringing an action for non-contractual liability arising from the damages she claims to have incurred from her brother's death allegedly caused by illegal refusal by the Commission to comply with plenary resolution of the European Parliament (1) and to enforce the application by Denmark of the provisions of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation (2) to the case of workers, including the applicant's brother, involved in a nuclear accident in Thule, Greenland.

(1) European Parliament report of 20 April 2007 on the public health consequences of the 1968 Thule crash (Petition 720/2002) [2006/2012(INI)].

(2) OJ L 159, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/44

Action brought on 5 January 2009 — Dornbracht v OHIM — Metaform Lucchese (META)

(Case T-1/09)

(2009/C 69/98)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and M. Bergermann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Metaform Lucchese SpA (Monsagrati, Italy)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) of 3 November 2008 (R 1152/2006-4);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs including those costs incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG.

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘META’ for goods in Classes 9, 11, 20 and 21 (Application No 3 081 271).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Metaform Lucchese SpA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘METAFORM’ for goods in Classes 6, 11, 20, 21 and 24 (Community trade mark No 1 765 361), the Italian figurative mark (Trade mark No 587 108) and the international figurative mark (Trade mark No 603 054) also for goods in Classes 6, 11, 20, 21 and 24.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/32

Action brought on 27 January 2009 — Hipp & Co v OHIM — Nestlé (Bebio)

(Case T-41/09)

(2009/C 82/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hipp & Co (Sachseln, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Bognár and M. Kinkeldey, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sociéte des Produits Nestlé, S.A. (Vevey, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 November 2008 in case R 1790/2007-2; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Bebio’, for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32

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: International trade mark registration No 187 436 of the word mark ‘BEBA’ for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30; Community trade mark registration No 3 043 387 of the word mark ‘BEBA’ for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/18

Action brought on 9 February 2009 — Deutsche Behindertenhilfe — Aktion Mensch v OHIM

(Case T-47/09)

2009/C 102/29

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Behindertenhilfe — Aktion Mensch (Mainz, Germany) (represented by V. Töbelmann and A. Piltz, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2008 in Case R 1094/2008-1;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘diegesellschafter.de’ for services in Classes 35 and 41 (application No 4 606 372)

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) NO 40/94, (1) since the marks cited have the required distinctive character and there is no requirement to keep the mark free.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/23

Appeal brought on 14 February 2009 by Enzo Reali against the Judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal made on 11 December 2008 in case F-136/06, Reali/Commission

(Case T-65/09 P)

2009/C 102/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Enzo Reali (Florence, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Other party to the appeal proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

— set aside the appealed decision and, subsequently, cancel the contested decision of the appointing authority;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to set aside the Civil Service Tribunal’s judgment in Case F-136/06 (1) rejecting the appellant’s action seeking the annulment of the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts classifying him at a grade and step at the moment of entering the service at the Commission as contractual agent.

In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward four pleas in law.

First, he contends that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law by deciding that the plea of illegality raised in the application at first instance against certain of the General Implementing Provisions (“the GIP”) was inadmissible in the absence of the raising of the same plea in the complaint of the pre-litigation procedure. The appellant submits that the issue of lack of Commission competence to which referred his pleas of illegality should be raised by the Tribunal ex officio. In a subsidiary manner, the appellant claims that, even if the Tribunal was not obliged to raise this issue ex officio, the said plea should have been considered admissible in so far as the legality of the specific criterion for his classification was questioned already in the original complaint.

Second, the appellant submits that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in its assessment of the appellant’s diplomas. He contends that determination of the value of a degree must be effected in regards of the national legislation where this degree was obtained since this determination is an exclusive competence of Member States and that the Tribunal reduced arbitrarily the scope of and distorted relevant Italian legislation.

Third, the appellant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal infringed the principle of non-discrimination when assessing the value of the appellant’s diplomas and comparing them to the ones of a person who has completed an undergraduate degree.

Fourth, the appellant states that the appealed judgment contains the contradictory argument as, in his opinion, the Civil Service Tribunal seems both, to take into consideration the Italian legislation and to not apply it for the solution of the case.

(1) Not yet reported in ERC
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/41

Action brought on 17 March 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Valfeuri Pates Alimentaires (PROTIVITAL)

(Case T-109/09)

2009/C 113/82

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Valfeuri Pates Alimentaires SA (Wittenheim, France)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 January 2009 in case R 1660/2007-4; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PROTIVITAL’, for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30 — application No 4 843 331

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

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the word mark ‘PROTI’ for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘PROTIPOWER’ for goods in classes 5, 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the word mark ‘PROTIPLUS’ for goods in classes 5, 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the trade word ‘PROTITOP’ for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘PROTI’ for goods in classes 5 and 29

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to assess the opposition on its merits; Infringement of Article 74(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to exercise discretion or at least failed to state reasons how it exercised discretion; Misuse of power as the Board of Appeal erred by not taking into account documents and evidence submitted by the applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/39

Action brought on 2 March 2009 — Strategi Group v OHIM — Reed Business Information (STRATEGI)

(Case T-92/09)

2009/C 113/78

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Strategi Group Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Saunders, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Reed Business Information (Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 December 2008 in case R 1581/2007-2 and remit the application to OHIM to allow it to proceed; and

— Order OHIM (and any intervening parties) to pay the costs of these proceedings and those of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘STRATEGI’, for services in class 35

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: French trade mark registration No 1 240 001 of the word mark ‘Stratégies’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43 of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in particular by ruling in the circumstances of this case that use of a trade mark as the title of a magazine may constitute use of that trade mark for services offered in that publication, and by failing to set out the proper evidential requirements needed to prove genuine use in such circumstances and/or by failing to give appropriate consideration to the evidence filed on the basis of the correct principles; Further, or in the alternative, infringement of Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1) as the Board of Appeal failed to properly apply the provision of the said legal provision to the circumstances of the case, since it failed to provide guidance on the evidence required to establish proof of use and/or wrongly found that the evidence filed by the opponent was inadequate to establish use of the trade mark for the services relied upon.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/55

Action brought on 10 April 2009 — MRI v Commission

(Case T-154/09)

2009/C 141/111

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Manuli Rubber Industries SpA (MRI) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, lawyer, M. Pappalardo, lawyer, and E. Marasà, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— annul Article 1 of the Decision in so far as it states that the applicant participated in a single and continuous infringement in the marine hose sector from 1 April 1986 until 1 August 1992 and from 3 September 1996 until 2 May 2007, in particular during the period from 3 September 1996 to 9 May 2000;

— annul Article 2 of the Decision in so far as a fine in the amount of EUR 4 900 000 is imposed on the applicant as a result of the errors set out in the present application;

— reject any objection or defence put forward to the contrary;

or, in the lesser alternative:

— reduce, in accordance with Article 229 EC, the fine of EUR 4 900 000 to be imposed on the applicant under Article 2 of the Decision;

and, in any event:

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Decision contested in the present case (‘the contested decision’) is the same as that contested in Case T-146/09 Parker ITR and Parker Hannifin v Commission.

In support of its claims, the applicant submits first that the contested decision is vitiated as regards the categorisation of the infringement imputed to the applicant as participation in a single and continuous cartel agreement from 1986 to 2007, and in particular as regards the imputation of the infringement during the period from 1996 to 2000, and the inclusion of the period from September 1996 to May 1997 in the period in respect of which the penalty was imposed.

It is submitted in that regard that an infringement cannot be either continuous or repeated when the individual infringement episodes are interspersed, as in the present case, with intervals of considerable length and, above all, with positive events which are incompatible with a desire to continue or to repeat the infringement, such as the applicant’s public and explicit breaking-off of relations with the cartel, which even the Commission acknowledged.

The applicant also submits that the amount of the fine was improperly determined, particularly as regards the duration, the gravity of the infringement and the reduction due for participation in the leniency programme.