ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/19

Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2013 — Yueqing Onesto Electric v OHIM — Ensto (ONESTO)

(Case T-624/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark ONESTO - Earlier Community figurative mark ENSTO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 129/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Yueqing Onesto Electric Co. Ltd (Zhejiang, China) (represented by: B. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Ensto Oy (Porvoo, Finland) (represented by: F. Teixeira Baptista, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2011 (Case R 2535/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Ensto Oy and Yueqing Onesto Electric Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Yueqing Onesto Electric Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/9

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2013 — Masottina v OHIM — Bodegas Cooperativas de Alicante (CA’MARINA)

(Case T-393/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CA’ MARINA - Earlier Community word mark MARINA ALTA - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2013/C 178/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Masottina SpA (Cornegliano, Italy) (represented by: N. Schaeffer, lawyer)

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: Bodegas Cooperativas de Alicante, Coop. V. (Petrel, Spain)

Re:

Action seeking the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2011 (Case R 518/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Cooperativas de Alicante, Coop. V. and Masottina SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Masottina SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/41

Judgment of the General Court of 18 April 2013 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

(Case T-507/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial name Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 156/76

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: initially S. Abrar, then P. Lange, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, V. von Bomhard, T. Heitmann, M. Petersenn, lawyers, and I. Fowler, solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2011 (Case R 262/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg and Peek & Cloppenburg KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/69

Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (AGIPA)

(Case T-219/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark AGIPA - Earlier national word mark AGIPA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Comparison of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/153

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: José Luis Otero González (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Apli-Agipa SAS (Dormans, France) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 January 2011 (Case R 556/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr José Luis Otero González and Apli-Agipa SAS

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 January 2011 (Case R 556/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr José Luis Otero González and Apli-Agipa SAS in so far as it dismisses Mr Otero González’s appeal and grants Apli-Agipa registration of the Community word mark AGIPA in respect of the ‘photographs; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; paint brushes; office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’ in Class 16 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Otero González;

4. Orders Apli-Agipa to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/66

Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2013 — Recombined Dairy System v Commission

(Case T-65/11) (1)

(Customs union - Import of lactoglobulin concentrates from New Zealand - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Request for remission of import duties - Article 220(2)(b) and Article 236 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92)

2013/C 225/145

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Recombined Dairy System A/S (Horsens, Denmark) (represented by: T. Kristjánsson and T. Gønge, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A.-M. Caeiros, L. Keppenne and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents, and P. Dyrberg, lawyer)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7692 final of 12 November 2010, stating that the post-clearance entry in the accounts of certain import duties was justified and that the remission of such duties was not justified (File REC 03/08)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1(2) and (4) of Commission Decision C(2010) 7692 final of 12 November 2010 stating that the post-clearance entry in the accounts of certain import duties was justified and that the remission of such duties was not justified (file REC 03/08) as far as it concerns the imports of lactoglobulin concentrates 131 and 8471;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by Recombined Dairy System A/S.

(1) OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 304/16

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank v Council

(Case T-434/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality)

2013/C 304/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented initially by S. Ashley and S. Gadhia, Solicitors, H. Hohmann, lawyer, D. Wyatt QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister, and subsequently by S. Ashley, H. Hohmann, D. Wyatt, R. Blakeley, and by S. Jeffrey and A. Irvine, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by E. Paasivirta and S. Boelaert, and subsequently by E. Paasivirta and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents), and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by S. Behzadi-Spencer, A. Robinson and C. Murrell, acting as Agents, and by J. Swift QC and R. Palmer, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65); secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26); thirdly, of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71); fourthly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11); and, fifthly, of 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), in so far as those acts concern the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as those acts concern Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank to bear three fifths of its own costs and to pay three fifths of the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

4. Orders the Council to bear two fifths of its own costs and to pay two fifths of the costs incurred by Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank;

5. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/73

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — McNeil v OHIM — Alkalon (NICORONO)

(Case T-580/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark NICORONO - Earlier Community word mark NICORETTE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/161

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: McNeil AB (Helsingborg, Sweden) (represented by: I. Starr, Solicitor, and G. Tritton, Barrister)

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: Alkalon ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 August 2011 (Case R 1582/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between McNeil AB and Alkalon ApS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 August 2011 (Case R 1582/2010-2);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/19

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Golden Balls Ltd v OHIM — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS)

(Case T-437/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GOLDEN BALLS - Earlier Community word mark BALLON D’OR - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Application for annulment filed by the intervener - Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Obligation to rule on the entirety of the action - Articles 8(5), 64(1) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2013/C 336/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, and S. Smith, Solicitor)

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: Intra-Presse (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: P. Péters, T. de Haan and M. Laborde, avocats)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 May 2011 (Case R 1310/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Intra-Presse and Golden Balls Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls point 1 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 May 2011 (Case R 1310/2010-1);

2. Rejects the application for annulment submitted by Intra-Presse;

3. Orders OHIM to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Golden Balls Ltd, with the exception of the latter’s costs concerning the application for annulment based on Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure;

4. Orders Intra-Presse to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Golden Balls Ltd concerning the application for annulment based on Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

(1) OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/23

Judgment of the General Court of (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 — Palirria Souliotis v Commission

(Case T-380/11) (1)

(Application for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility)

2013/C 313/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Anonymi Viotechniki kai Emporiki Etairia Kataskevis Konservon — Palirria Souliotis AE (Politika, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Keppenne, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2011 of 6 May 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2011 L 122, p. 63).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

2. Orders Anonymi Viotechniki kai Emporiki Etairia Kataskevis Konservon — Palirria Souliotis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/33

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Aloe Vera of America v OHIM — Detimos (FOREVER)

(Case T-528/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark FOREVER - Earlier national figurative mark 4 EVER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2014/C 52/60

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aloe Vera of America, Inc. (Dallas, Texas, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and F. Kerl, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Detimos — Gestão Imobiliária, SA (Carregado, Portugal) (represented by: V. Caires Soares, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 August 2011 (Case R 742/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Diviril — Distribuidora de Viveres do Ribatejo, Lda and Aloe Vera of America, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Aloe Vera of America, Inc. to pay the costs, including those incurred by Detimos — Gestão Imobiliária, SA in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(1) OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 377/12

Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — International Cadmium Association (ICdA) and Others v European Commission

(Case T-456/11) (1)

(REACH - Transitional measures concerning the restrictions on the manufacture, marketing and use of cadmium and its compounds - Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Restrictions on the use of cadmium pigments in plastic materials - Manifest error of assessment - Risk analysis)

2013/C 377/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: International Cadmium Association (ICdA), established in Brussels (Belgium), Rockwood Pigments (UK) Ltd, established in Stoke-on-Trent (United Kingdom), James M Brown Ltd, established in Stoke-on-Trent (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana, lawyers, and subsequently by R. Cana,)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents, assisted by K. Sawyer, barrister, and subsequently by P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve,)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 494/2011 of 20 May 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Cadmium) (OJ 2011 L 134, p. 2), in so far as it established restrictions on the use of cadmium in plastic materials other than those in respect of which that use was restricted before the adoption of Regulation No 494/2011

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Regulation (EU) No 494/2011 of 20 May 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Cadmium) in so far as it restricts the use of cadmium sulpho-selenide orange (No CAS 1256-57-4), cadmium sulpho-selenide red (No CAS 58339-34-7) and cadmium zinc sulphide (No CAS 8048 07-5) in mixtures and articles produced from synthetic organic polymers other than those in respect of which that use was restricted before the adoption of Regulation No 494/2011;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear 90 % of its own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by International Cadmium Association (ICdA), Rockwood Pigments (UK) Ltd and James M Brown Ltd;

4. Orders ICdA, Rockwood Pigments (UK) and James M Brown to bear 10 % of their own costs and to pay 10 % of the costs incurred by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/32

Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2014 — Deutsche Bank v OHIM (Leistung aus Leidenschaft)

(Case T-539/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Leistung aus Leidenschaft - Trade mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court))

2014/C 142/40

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Bank AG (Frankfurt on Main) (represented by: R. Lange, T. Götting and G. Hild, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 August 2011 (Case R 188/2011-4) concerning an application for registration of word sign Leistung aus Leidenschaft as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deutsche Bank AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/28

Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Pêra-Grave v OHIM — Fundação Eugénio de Almeida (QTA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA)

(Case T-602/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark QTA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA - Earlier national figurative marks VINHO PERA-MANCA TINTO, VINHO PERA-MANCA BRANCO and PÊRA-MANCA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 112/36

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda (Evora, Portugal) (represented by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda Sousa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Fundação Eugénio de Almeida (Evora) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 September 2011 (Case R 1797/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Fundação Eugénio de Almeida and Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Fundação Eugénio de Almeida for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(1) OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/30

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2014 — Siemens v Commission

(Case T-223/11) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Contract for the loan of fissile material intended for the Joint Research Centre’s Ispra site - Non-performance of the contract - Default interest))

2014/C 292/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Siemens AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Risse, R. Harbst and H. Haller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, acting as Agents, and by R. Van der Hout and A. Krämer, lawyers)

Re:

Action based on an arbitration clause seeking an order for reimbursement by the Commission of all or part of the costs of reprocessing fissile material incurred by the applicant in the context of the performance of Contract No AG 2052 relating to the lending of fissile material intended for the Joint Research Centre site in Ispra (Italy), and for default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Siemens AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.