ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 April 2010 — Colas v OHIM — García-Teresa Gárate (BASE-SEAL)

(Case T-172/10)

(2010/C 161/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Colas (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: E. Logeais, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rosario García-Teresa Gárate

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— primarily, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal: — in so far as it found that there was no similarity between the signs, relying on a distorted representation of the trade mark application at issue and failing, inter alia, to precisely specify the relevant public and to give reasons for the distinctive and dominant character of the terms BASE-SEAL; — in so far as it denied all similarity of the signs and consequently rejected the opposition to registration of the trade mark BASE-SEAL in breach of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR; and

— in the alternative, partly annul the decision of the Board of Appeal in respect of the sole goods other than ‘chemicals used in science, photography, agriculture, horticulture and forestry … manures, chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs…’;

— in any event, order the Office to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Rosario García-Teresa Gárate

Community trade mark concerned: a figurative mark ‘BASE-SEAL’ for goods in Classes 1, 17 and 19 (Application No 3 951 464)

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: several national figurative marks (Spanish, Hungarian, French, Polish, Swedish, German and Czech) and an international figurative mark in the form of a diamond, partly in yellow and containing the word ‘Colas’ for goods in Classes 1, 19 and 37

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark on account of the fact that there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/41

Action brought on 12 April 2010 — ARA v OHIM — Allrounder (Representation of the letter ‘A’ with two horns)

(Case T-174/10)

2010/C 179/73

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: ara AG (Langenfeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Allrounder SARL (Saarburg, France)

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 26 January 2010 in case R 481/2009-1; and

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Allrounder SARL.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, representing the letter ‘A’ with two horns, for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: In particular, a word mark ‘A’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Action dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is a likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Action brought on 19 April 2010 — CTG Luxembourg PSF v Court of Justice

(Case T-170/10)

(2010/C 161/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Computer Task Group Luxembourg PSF SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Thewes, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions taken by the Court of Justice in the context of the European public contract ‘AO 008/2009: 1st and 2nd level support for the users of IT and telephone systems, call centre, end user hardware management’, specifically: — the decision of the tender opening board of 9 February 2010 to reject the tender of CTG CONSORTIUM because it was ‘lodged out of time’; — the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union to award the contract to another tenderer (not dated and unknown at that date to the applicant); — the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union confirming the rejection of the tender of CTG CONSORTIUM of 05/03/2010;

— declare the non-contractual liability of the European Union and order the Court of Justice to compensate the applicant for all the loss incurred on account of the contested decisions and appoint an expert to evaluate that loss;

— order the Court of Justice to pay all the costs and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant is seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the tender opening board of 9 February 2010, rejecting the applicant’s offer because it was lodged out of time, in the context of the tendering procedure concerning 1st and 2nd level support for the users of IT systems, call centre, end user hardware management (OJ 2009/S 217-312292), and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, an application for damages.

In support of its appeal, the applicant puts forward four pleas alleging:

— infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of equal treatment of tenderers and the principle of freedom of competition, by imposing a final time for posting the tenders, in addition to the final date for sending them;

— infringement of the obligation to reply to requests for information sent in due time to the contracting authority;

— infringement of the obligation to inform rejected tenderers of the grounds on which the rejection of their tender was based, the name of the successful tenderer and information as to the means of appeal;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/56

Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Regione Puglia v Commission

(Case T-223/10)

2010/C 179/95

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Regione Puglia (Bari, Italy) (represented by: F. Brunelli and A. Aloia, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Debit Note No 3241001630 of the European Commission of 26 February 2010.

— Order the Commission to pay the costs, including a fixed amount for general costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the debit note issued by the Commission on 26 February 2010 in implementation of Decision C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009 concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) allocated to the operational programme POR Puglia Obiettivo 1 2000-2006. That decision was challenged by the Regione Puglia and by Italy in Case T-84/10 (1) and Case T-117/10 (2) respectively.

In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the following pleas:

— Decision C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009 is unlawful, on the basis of the pleas in law and main arguments already relied on in Case T-84/10.

— Infringement of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the procedure for making financial corrections to assistance granted under the Structural Funds, (3) which provides for the application of a rate of interest of 1,5 % above the rate applied by the European Central Bank in its main refinancing operations, since the contested debit note provides that the rate of interest to be charged is that published in the OJEU on 1 April 2010, increased by 3,5 %.

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.10, p. 58.

(2) Not yet published in the OJ.

(3) OJ L 64, 6.3.2001, p. 13.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/49

Action brought on 31 May 2010 — Kitzinger v OHIM — Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (KICO)

(Case T-249/10)

()

2010/C 209/74

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Kitzinger & Co (GmbH & Co. KG) (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Kitzinger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (body governed by public law) (Leipzig, Germany), Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (body governed by public law) (Mainz, Germany)

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 25 March 2010 in Case R 1388/2008-4 to the extent that the decision of the Opposition Division of 28 July 2008 on opposition No B 1 133 612 is annulled and the opposition rejected;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 March 2010 in Case R 1388/2008-4;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark in blue and grey colours, which contains the word element ‘KICO’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 36 and 39.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (body governed by public law) and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (body governed by public law).

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘KIKA’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 38 and 41 and German figurative mark in black and white colours which contains the word element ‘KIKA’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 38, 41 and 42.

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 207/2009, (1) because there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/21

Action brought on 3 May 2010 — Strålfors Aktiebolag v OHMI (IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS)

(Case T-212/10)

2010/C 195/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Strålfors AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M. Nielsen, lawyer)

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

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 22 January 2010 in case R 1112/2009-2;

— Approve for registration the Community trade mark application No 8235186 ‘IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS’ for ‘labels and boxes made from paper and cardboard (not for identification of individuals); bookbinding material; adhesives for stationery or household purposes, artists’ materials; paint brushes; typewriters and 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; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS’ for goods in class 16 — Community trade mark application No 8235186

Decision of the examiner: Partially refused registration of the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and confirmed the contested decision

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the Community trade mark application No 8235186 ‘IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS’ should be allowed for registration for goods in class 16 because ‘IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS’ is distinctive for these goods and thus meets with the requirements according to Article 4 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/49

Action brought on 26 May 2010 — Tsakiris-Mallas v OHIM — Seven (7 Seven Fashion Shoes)

(Case T-244/10)

()

2010/C 221/79

Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Tsakiris-Mallas Α.Ε. (Argiroupoli Attiki, Greece) (represented by: Ν. Simantiras, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Seven S.p.A. (Turin, Italy)

Form of order sought from the General Court

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)of 22 March 2010 in Case R 1045/2009-2

— order that the application No 544581 for registration as a community trade mark of the figurative mark ‘7 Seven Fashion Shoes’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 be accepted, and

— order the parties opposing these proceedings to pay the costs, including the costs relating to the opposition and appeal proceedings before OHIM

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘7 Seven Fashion Shoes’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 (application for registration No 5445481)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the other party in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian figurative mark ‘7Seven’, registration Νο 769 296, for goods in Classes 14, 16 and 18; and Italian figurative mark registration Νο 928116 for goods in Classes 16 and 18

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and rejection of the application for registration for goods in Class 18

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the Board of Appeal erred in finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue; infringement of Article 65(2), read with Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009; infringement of Article 65(2) read in conjunction with Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 since the Board of Appeal entirely failed to examine the question to what extent Article 8(5) of the regulation did or did not apply.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/45

Action brought on 24 May 2010 — Scatizza v OHIM — Jacinto (HORSE COUTURE)

(Case T-238/10)

()

2010/C 209/69

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Stephanie Scatizza (Lugano, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Manuel Jacinto, Lda (S. Paio de Oleiros, Portugal)

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 5 March 2010 in case R 723/2009-2;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings; and

— Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, should it become an intervening party in this case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘HORSE COUTURE’, for goods in class 18 — Community trade mark application No 6030399

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: Portuguese trade mark registration No 379879 of the figurative mark ‘HORSE’, for goods in class 18

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the concerned trade marks.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/50

Action brought on 30 June 2010 — Sports Warehouse/HABM (TENNIS WAREHOUSE)

(Case T-290/10)

()

2010/C 234/89

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sports Warehouse GmbH (Schutterwald, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, Rechtsanwalt)

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 21 April 2010 in Case R 1259/2009-1;

— Register the Community trade mark 7536899 ‘TENNIS WAREHOUSE’

— Order the Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘TENNIS WAREHOUSE’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 28 and 35

Decision of the examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1) (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) on the ground that the mark was not descriptive in character and that the concept of the need for reservation was ignored; infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/45

Action brought on 21 June 2010 — K-Mail Order v OHIM — IVKO (MEN’Z)

(Case T-279/10)

()

2010/C 234/81

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: K-Mail Order GmbH & Co. KG (Pforzheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Zeiher, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: IVKO Industrieprodukt-Vertriebskontakt GmbH (Baar-Wanderath, Germany)

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 30 March 2010 in Case R 746/2009-1;

— Uphold the opposition against allowing the contested Community trade mark application; in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal for further consideration;

— Order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: IVKO Industrieprodukt-Vertriebskontakt GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark MEN’Z for goods in Classes 9, 14 and 18

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the company name ‘WENZ’ used in Germany in the course of trade for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) in conjunction with Article 41(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) and infringement of Article 76(1) of that regulation as the applicant’s company name is of more than mere local significance

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/22

Action brought on 26 July 2010 — Three-N-Products Private/OHMI — Shah (AYUURI NATURAL)

(Case T-313/10)

()

2010/C 260/30

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Three-N-Products Private Ltd (New Delhi, India) (represented by: C. Jäger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mr S Shah, Mr A Shah, Mr M Shah — A Partnership t/a FUDCO (Wembley, United Kingdom)

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 1 June 2010 in case R 1005/2009-4;

— Order the defendant to confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 July 2009 and to reject the community trade mark application No 5805387 in its entirety;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings;

— Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division, should it become an intervening party in this case.

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 ‘AYUURI NATURAL’, for goods in classes 3 and 5

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

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 2996098 of the figurative mark ‘Ayur’, for, amongst others, the goods in classes 3 and 5; Community trade mark registration No 5429469 of the word mark ‘AYUR’, for, amongst others, goods in classes 3 and 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal, annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition

Pleas in law: The applicant advances two pleas in law in support of its application.

On the basis of its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Articles 7 and 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erroneously stated that there is no likelihood of confusion and that the earlier trademarks have a suggestive connotation in relation to the goods at hand which reduces the distinctive character of the earlier marks.

By its second plea, the applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 65(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misused its power by ruling the contested decision since it lacks objectivity and legal basis.