ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/14

Action brought on 18 July 2014 — The Cookware Company v OHIM — Fissler (VITA+VERDE)

(Case T-535/14)

2014/C 351/16

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Cookware Company Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fissler GmbH (Idar-Oberstein, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 April 2014 given in Case R 1082/2013-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in colour containing the verbal elements ‘VITA+VERDE’ for gods in Class 21 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 0 73 054

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 in opposition: The earlier CTM No 1 0 13 787 for the word ‘vitavit’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and upheld the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/23

Action brought on 7 August 2014 — Zuffa v OHIM (ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP)

(Case T-590/14)

2014/C 351/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zuffa, LLC (Las Vegas, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and C. Balme, Solicitors)

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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 1425/2013-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 28 and 41

Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b),(c) and 7(2) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/14

Action brought on 31 July 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA)

(Case T-572/14)

2014/C 361/19

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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 27 May 2014 in case R 527/2014-4;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘BIO CON ESTRATTI VEGETALI DI PRODUZIONE PROPRIA’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 2 1 30 076

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/16

Action brought on 22 July 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)

(Case T-553/14)

2014/C 351/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

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 Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 218/2014-5.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal element ‘Extra’ for goods in Classes 3, 21 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 11 737 657

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/17

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-593/14)

2014/C 361/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

— in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

(1) OJ C 290, p. 13.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/14

Action brought on 30 July 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG)

(Case T-571/14)

2014/C 361/18

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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 27 May 2014 in case R 125/2014-4;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 22 911

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision interrupting [the payment deadline] and initiating the suspension procedure infringed Article 87(2), in conjunction with Articles 91 and 92 of Council Regulation 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25). — It is claimed in this regard, that the period referred to in Article 87(2) is a limitation period that prevents the Commission from adopting a decision interrupting the payment deadline once the two month period has expired and, therefore, does not permit a suspension of payments procedure to be initiated either.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 372/20

Action brought on 7 August 2014 — Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission

(Case T-586/14)

2014/C 372/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd (Anhui, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: Y. Melin and V. Akritidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China, as far as it applies to Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd; and

— Order the Commission, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts and the law in considering that the applicant’s production costs and financial situation are subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, in breach of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, third indent.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and failed to adduce consistent evidence in deducting from the applicant’s export price a sales agent commission equivalent to the mark-up charged to the applicant by a related company in Hong Kong, without adducing adequate evidence that this related company was indeed operating as a commission-based agent, in breach of Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not calculate the applicant’s export price on the basis of the price actually paid or payable for the product when sold to the EU, nor is it based on the price at which the exported product is first resold to an independent buyer in the EU, in breach of Article 2(8) and (9) of the basic Regulation.

4. The fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to disclose the essential facts and evidences making it possible to understand how it calculated the applicant’s dumping and injury margins, in breach of Article 20 of the basic Regulation and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 142, p. 1).
—

annul Council Decision 2014/483/CFSP of 22 July 2014 updating and amending the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision 2014/72/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Hamas (including Hamas-Izz-al-Din-al-Quassem);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/44

Action brought on 23 July 2014 — HB and Others v Commission

(Case T-361/14)

2014/C 409/64

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: HB and Others (Linz, Austria) Hans Joachim Richter (Bremen, Germany); Carmen Arsene (Pitesti, Romania); Robert Coates Smith (Glatton, United Kingdom); Magdalena Anna Kuropatwinska (Warsaw, Poland); Nathalie Louise Klinge (Zuidbroek, Netherlands); and Christos Yiapanis (Paphos, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Kolar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission decision of 26 March 2014 which rejected registration of the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ethics for Animals and Kids’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants claim, in essence, that by the decision which rejected registration of the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ethics for Animals and Kids’, the Commission had failed to observe the limits of its competence and infringed its duty to protect, the general prohibition of arbitrariness and Articles 11 and 13 TFEU.
1.

First plea in law: Infringement of Article 31 et seq. of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) — It is submitted in this connection that the contested implementing decision is based on a procedure which was initiated and conducted in a procedurally unlawful manner. In this regard, the applicants state inter alia that, contrary to the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC, the procedure was initiated not before, but only after a decision on a request for renewal of the medicinal product was made and that, in addition, there was no specific case of Union interest. Furthermore, with regard to the first applicant, the initiation of the procedure entails a circumvention of the rules existing in the Member State of Germany on the renewal of medicinal products. — Furthermore, the applicants argue that the appropriate Scientific Risk Assessment Committee was not involved in the procedure and that, in addition, a biased member was appointed as rapporteur in the Scientific Committee on Medicinal Products involved in the procedure. — In addition, the first applicant claims that it was not properly consulted on an essential aspect within the framework of the expert opinion review procedure.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/50

Action brought on 20 August 2014 — Beul v Parliament and Council

(Case T-640/14)

2014/C 409/71

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Carsten René Beul (Neuwied, Germany) (represented by: H. Pott and T. Eckhold, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on specific requirements regarding statutory audit of public-interest entities and repealing Commission Decision 2005/909/EC.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies, in essence, on the following pleas in law.

In the first place, the applicant alleges that Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 (1) is not covered by any enabling provision.

In addition, the applicant takes the view that the provisions of Regulation No 537/2014 represent an unlawful infringement of the freedom to choose an occupation guaranteed in accordance with Article 6(1) TEU in conjunction with Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicant submits that the infringement of the freedom to choose an occupation is unjustified particularly on grounds of a lack of proportionality. Furthermore, the applicant claims infringement of the principle of subsidiarity.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on specific requirements regarding statutory audit of public-interest entities and repealing Commission Decision 2005/909/EC (OJ 2014 L 158, p. 77).
1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to a fair trial: — the applicant was not informed about the contested measures, he was not provided with any credible evidence or indication justifying his inclusion on the list of persons sanctioned, although the Council must bear the burden of proof; — the accusations against the applicant, that he was ‘responsible for violent repression of the civilian population in Syria’ are neither clear nor complete and are based on conjecture.
—

The Applicant claims that Article 215 TFEU is an inappropriate legal basis for the contested provisions of the contested Regulation since there are insufficient links between the Applicant and (i) the Russian Government and (ii) the apparent objective that the sanctions seek to achieve. These principles should also govern the use of Article 29 TEU as a legal basis for restrictive measures against third countries.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/43

Action brought on 5 November 2014 — TeamBank v OHIM — Easy Asset Management (easy Credit)

(Case T-745/14)

(2015/C 007/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Nürnberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Lindner, D. Terheggen and T. Kiphuth, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Easy Asset Management AD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘easy Credit’ — International Registration designating the European Union No 8 11 527

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2014 in Case R 1975/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision insofar as it concerns goods and services in Classes 36 and 38;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 52(1)(a), 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/40

Action brought on 17 November 2014 — Ica Foods v OHIM — San Lucio (GROK)

(Case T-774/14)

(2015/C 026/51)

Language in which the action was brought: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Ica Foods SpA (Pomezia, Italy) (represented by: A. Nespega, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: San Lucio Srl (San Gervasio Bresciano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Word mark ‘GROK’ — Community mark No 4 4 39 956

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2014 in Case R 1815/2013-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision relating to invalidity proceedings No 6374C in respect of the registration of the Community mark GROK No 4439956, for infringement of Articles 62 and 63 of the Community Trade Mark Regulation and/or for infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 40/94 and/or failure to provide adequate reasons, for those reasons;

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

Pleas in law

— infringement of Articles 62 and 63 of the Community Trade Mark Regulation for failure on the part of OHIM to notify the applicant of the deadline for submission of observations in the action, thus in breach of the adversarial principle;

— infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 40/94 and failure to provide adequate reasons as regards the similarity between the goods deriving from San Lucio milk and the goods covered by the registration of ICA’s marks;

— infringement of the Article 8 of Regulation No 40/94 and failure to provide adequate reasons as regards the similarity between the mark GROK of San Lucio and the mark CRIK CROK of ICA;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/40

Action brought on 8 October 2014 — Bonney v OHIM — Bruno (ATHEIST)

(Case T-714/14)

(2014/C 431/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: David Bonney (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vanessa Bruno (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ATHEIST’ — Application for registration No 1 0 0 34 874

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2014 in Case R 803/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition insofar as it concerns goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/58

Action brought on 4 December 2014 — Laboratorios ERN v OHIM — michelle menard (Lenah.C)

(Case T-802/14)

(2015/C 046/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios ERN, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: michelle menard GmbH — Berlin cosmetics (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Lenah.C’ — Application for registration No 10 426 617

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2014 in Case R 2260/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and, if applicable, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs (jointly and severally).

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law: By assuming that the proposed citizens’ initiative does not fall within its competence, the Commission infringed Article 11(4) TEU as well as Article 2(1) and Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 (1). — The applicants submit in that regard that the Commission’s reasoning — that the intended recommendation to the Commission to withdraw the negotiating mandate for the ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’ (TTIP) is not directed at a ‘legal act’ within the meaning of Article 11(4) TFEU — is defective. For both the grant of the negotiating mandate and its withdrawal are decisions of the Council within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, which at the same time are ‘legal acts’ within the meaning of Article 11(4) TFEU. — The applicants further submit that the Commission’s additional reasoning — that the citizens’ initiative against the ‘Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement’ (CETA) and TTIP cannot require the Commission to refrain from recommending the Council to accept the respective negotiated international agreements, and also cannot require the Commission to recommend a decision on the non-acceptance of the respective negotiated agreements — is also defective. For it is in no way apparent from Article 11(4) TEU, Article 2(1) and Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 that citizens’ initiatives directed at the abolition of existing legal acts or citizens’ initiatives directed at the non-adoption of proposed legal acts are to be inadmissible. — The applicants further submit that the non-registration of the ‘STOP-TTIP’ citizens’ initiative is also unlawful because, in any event, the proposed citizens’ initiative does not ‘manifestly’ fall outside the Commission’s competence in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011.