ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/29

Action brought on 3 November 2014 — Alpha Calcit v OHIM — Materis Paints Italia (CALCILITE)

(Case T-742/14)

(2014/C 462/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: F. Hauck, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Materis Paints Italia SpA (Novate Milanese, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark ‘CALCILITE’ — Community trade mark No 5 0 74 745

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2014 in Case R 753/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision with regard to the following goods: paints, varnishes, lacquers, preservatives against rust and against deterioration of wood, colorants, mordants, raw natural resins (class 2); pargets (class 19);

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/42

Action brought on 13 October 2014 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-721/14)

(2014/C 431/66)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, and P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Recommendation 2014/478/EU of 14 July 2014 on principles for the protection of consumers and players of online gambling services and for the prevention of minors from gambling online;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of conferral under Article 5 TEU by not referring to the substantive legal basis in the Treaties that confer on the Commission the competence to adopt the contested measure.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of conferral, given that the Treaties do not confer on the Commission the competence to adopt an instrument with harmonising effect in the games of chance sector.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of cooperation in good faith under Article 4(3) TEU and the principle of institutional balance under Article 13(2) TEU due to the Commission’s disregard of the Conclusions of the Council of 10 December 2010‘Framework for gambling and betting in the EU member states’ (Document 16884/10).

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of cooperation in good faith under Article 4(3) TEU in respect of the Member States.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for including the applicant on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine were fulfilled as regards the applicant. The applicant alleges that it does not fulfil the listing criteria and that the Council thus acted ultra vires in listing it in the contested measures.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/41

Action brought on 26 November 2014 — Fon Wireless v OHIM — Henniger (NEOFON — FON ET AL.)

(Case T-777/14)

(2015/C 026/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Fon Wireless Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andreas Henniger (Starnberg, Germany)

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: Community word mark ‘Neofon’ — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 74 893

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2014 in Case R 2519/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision and consequently, take necessary steps to ensure the effectiveness of the decision of the Court;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/44

Action brought on 10 October 2014 — Universal Protein Supplements Corp. d/b/a Universal Nutrition v OHIM — H. Young Holdings (animal)

(Case T-728/14)

(2014/C 431/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Universal Protein Supplements Corp. d/b/a Universal Nutrition (New Brunswick, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: H. Young Holdings plc (Newbury, United Kingdom)

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: Community figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘animal’ — Community trade mark No 2 8 24 548

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 July 2014 in Case R 2058/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and the other party to pay their own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/59

Action brought on 12 December 2014 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-809/14)

(2015/C 046/77)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato, and G. Palmieri, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Note HR.A 2 of 2 October 2014 sent by the European Commission’s Director-General for Human Resources to the Director-General for the European Union of the Italian Republic’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the note mentioned above, which follows the vacancy notice for the post of Director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (Luxembourg) (COM/2014/10356) — previously contested in Case T-636/14 — and which takes a position on the supposed difference between the notice in question and the form on the Commission’s website through which applications may be submitted, which limits the languages in which such submissions may be made to English, French and German.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 TFEU and the fourth paragraph of Article 24 TFEU, Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community, and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the notice, by its reference to the Commission’s website, which set out the binding provision mentioned above, made it compulsory for applicants to submit their CV and supporting letter in English, French or German, rather than allowing them to submit those documents in any one of the languages of the European Union. According to the applicant, in order to compensate for those defects, the Commission should have edited the website and extended the deadline for submitting applications.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a failure to observe the principles of legitimate expectations and sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU), in so far as the Commission had formally assured the Italian Government several times during the process for adopting the notice that the language discrimination mentioned above would be removed, but instead acted in the opposite manner when drafting that notice and preparing the rules for the functioning of the website to which the notice refers those wishing to submit applications.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/45

Action brought on 12 December 2014 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-808/14)

(2015/C 034/54)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: the Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Abogado del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against the Decision of the European Commission of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA 27408 (C 24/2010) NN 37/2010 EX, EX CP 19/2009) granted by the authorities of Castilla La Mancha for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less developed areas of Castilla La Mancha.

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

1. By its first plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU as a result of the lack of an economic advantage for undertakings engaged in an economic activity, lack of selectivity of the measure and lack of distortion of competition.

2. By its second plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 106(2) and 107(3)(c) TFEU as a result of the lack of evidence to show that the principle of technological neutrality has been infringed.

3. By its third plea in law, the applicant alleges breach of the State aid procedure as a result of the irregularities which occurred during the preparatory investigation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/49

Action brought on 22 December 2014 — Alnapharm v OHIM — Novartis (Alrexil)

(Case T-839/14)

(2015/C 065/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alnapharm GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Heldt, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Alrexil’ — Application for registration No 10 306 249

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 in Case R 1723/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of OHIM;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/39

Action brought on 4 December 2014 — Ogrodnik v OHIM — Aviário Tropical (Tropical)

(Case T-804/14)

(2015/C 065/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tadeusz Ogrodnik (Chorzów, Poland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aviário Tropical, SA (Loures, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: figurative mark in black and white containing the word element ‘Tropical’ — Community trade mark No 3 435 773

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2014 in Case R 1948/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and the other party to proceedings, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
—

Declare null and void and, in any event, annul letter SM/SE S/2622874 of 28 July 2014 from Jerzy Plewa, Director-General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development at the European Commission, addressed to Felice Assenza, Director General of International and European Union policies at the Italian Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Policy, of which the applicant became aware as a result of a request for access to documents dated 19 November 2014, in so far as it rejects Italy’s application for support measures in respect of requests No 6 to 9 made pursuant to Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 and, in particular, those relating to undertakings marketing animals slaughtered as part of the implementation of health measures against the spread of avian influenza and related commercial losses, and also Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1071/2014 of 10 October 2014 on exceptional support measures for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors in Italy, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 11 October 2014, in so far as it excludes from support measures, adopted pursuant to Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, undertakings marketing animals slaughtered as part of the implementation of health measures against the spread of avian influenza and related commercial losses.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/51

Action brought on 23 December 2014 — Søndagsavisen v Commission

(Case T-833/14)

(2015/C 138/68)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Søndagsavisen A/S (Søborg, Denmark) (represented by: M. Honoré, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2014 not to raise objections to the tax exemption for certain advertisements (SA.35683);

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a competitor of the aid recipient, has submitted that the Commission ought to have found that there were doubts as to whether tax exemptions on non-nominative advertising material and subscription newspapers delivered to households constituted aid.

The applicant submits that the Commission accordingly ought to have decided to institute the formal investigation procedure, see Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 (1). In failing to do so, the Commission disregarded the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108, stk. 2, TFEU.

The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of its argument that there were reasonable doubts:

— the time the Commission took to handle the case was extraordinarily long and in itself shows that there was reasonable doubt — not least since it involved a notified aid scheme under Article 108(3) TFEU;

— the Commission’s decision is vitiated by a lack of statement of reasons for the tax exemptions on non-nominative advertising material and subscription newspapers delivered to households; and

— the Commission conducted an incomplete and incorrect examination of the Danish legislation on advertising taxes in determining whether the tax exemptions on non-nominative advertising material and subscription newspapers delivered to households gave rise to State aid.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, s. 1).
3.

Third plea in law, alleging incorrect exercise of competence by the Commission Even if the Commission had competence to adopt the contested decision and also proceeded, when adopting the contested decision, in accordance with the principle of legal certainty (quod non), according to the Slovak Republic, it did not exercise its competence correctly in this case. In the first place, the Commission made an obviously incorrect assessment in so far as it requires financial means from the Slovak Republic despite the fact that in part there was no loss of traditional own resources at all and for the rest there was no loss as a direct consequence of the events the Commission attributes to the Slovak Republic. In the second place, the Commission committed a breach of the rights of defence of the Slovak Republic and the principle of sound administration.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 81/24

Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Leopard v OHIM — Smart Market (LEOPARD true racing)

(Case T-7/15)

(2015/C 081/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Leopard SA (Howald, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Lê Dai, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Smart Market, SLU (Alcantarilla, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘LEOPARD true racing’ — Application for registration No 10 139 202

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2014 in Case R 1866/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in part the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1159/2014 of 30 October 2014 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/35

Action brought on 19 January 2015 — NICO v Council

(Case T-24/15)

(2015/C 089/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (Pully, Suisse) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2012, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2), in so far as these acts include the applicant in the category of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures;

— order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law: violation of the right of hearing, insufficient statement of grounds, violation of the right of defence, manifest error of assessment, and breach of fundamental right to property.

The applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this, especially in relation to the imposition on current contractual engagements. Furthermore, the Council failed to supply a sufficient statement of reasons. By these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, including the right to effective judicial protection. Contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant is not a subsidiary of NICO Ltd as designated by the Council, as this company no longer exists in Jersey and does not exist in Iran; and in any case the Council has not substantiated that even if it were a subsidiary, this would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested acts. Finally, by imposing on the property rights and current contractual engagements managed by the applicant, the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.

(1) OJ L 325, p. 19.

(2) OJ L 325, p. 3.
—

annul the contested decision and, in particular, Article 1 thereof, in so far as it declares the existence of State aid which is incompatible with the internal market;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/40

Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Tronios Group International v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting Group (SkyTec)

(Case T-77/15)

(2015/C 118/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Tronios Group International BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: R. van Leeuwen and H. Klingenberg, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Tronios Group International BV

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SkyTec’

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2014 in Case R 1681/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for annulment of British Sky Broadcasting Group;

— order British Sky Broadcasting Group to pay the costs of these proceedings and the costs of the earlier proceedings before OHIM.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 February 2015 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — Dermogen Farma (ETERN JUVENTUS)

(Case T-60/15)

(2015/C 107/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dermogen Farma, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ETERN JUVENTUS’ — Application for registration No 10 862 548

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014 in Case R 2414/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014 in Case R 2414/2013-1 in relation to the partial granting of the trade mark application for the following services: Class 35 ‘Retailing, wholesaling and sale via global computer networks of dentifrices; sole agencies and business representation relating to dentifrices’;

— refuse Community trade mark application No 10 862 548 ‘ETERN JUVENTUS’ for ‘Retailing, wholesaling and sale via global computer networks of dentifrices; sole agencies and business representation relating to dentifrices’ in Class 35; and

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

Plea in law