ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

the decision was incorrect in so far as it stated that the applicant's bid focused exclusively on the Driving force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model; in any event, the tender specifications specifically require the integrated use of ‘social, economic and environmental institutional indicators of land use changes’, with DPSIR being the most internationally established tool for the management and integration of such indicators. Moreover, DPSIR has been developed and properly used by the European Environment Agency. The tool in fact proposed by the applicant is a DPSIR model updated in accordance with an innovative methodology and already successfully used in several projects of the United Nations and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/41

Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Ryanair/Commission

(Case T-495/08)

(2009/C 32/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the Commission's implied decision refusing access to the documents for which access was requested by the applicant in an application dated 25 June 2008 is void and that the Commission's decision of 8 October 2008 refusing access to the same documents is non-existent;

— alternatively, declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the Commission's decision of 8 October 2008 refusing access to the documents for which access was requested by the applicant in an application dated 25 June 2008 is void;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings; and

— take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission implied decision rejecting the applicant's request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the access to documents relating to State aid procedures concerning the presumed State aid granted through an agreement with the operator of Alghero airport. The said decision was followed by the express decision of 8 October 2008. The annulment of the express decision is alternatively sought by the applicant in the present case.

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical to those relied on in Case T-494/08 Ryanair v Commission.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/49

Action brought on 25 November 2008 — Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein v OHIM (Hunter)

(Case T-505/08)

(2009/C 44/87)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research and Development (Leopoldshöhe, Germany) (represented by C. Czychowski, lawyer)

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 17 September 2008 in Case R 1733/2007-1, as well as the decision of the examiner of 17 October 2007 and admit Community trade mark application No 4829347 for publication; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Hunter’ for goods in classes 18 and 25 (Application No 4 829 347)

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in that the trade mark neither can be denied the necessary distinctive character nor involves a descriptive indication.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/40

Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Visonic v OHIM — Sedea Electronique (VISIONIC)

(Case T-569/08)

(2009/C 55/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Visonic Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: A. Beschorner and C. Thomas, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sedea Electronique SA (Seclin, France)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 October 2008 in joined cases R 946/2007-2 and R 1151/2007-2;

— Declare Community trade mark No 1 562 982 ‘VISIONIC’ invalid in respect of all the goods concerned;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the court and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

— Set a date for an oral hearing in this case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘VISIONIC’ for goods in class 9

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

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partly upheld the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal in case R 946/2007-2; Annulled the contested decision rejecting the cancellation request; Dismissed the appeal in case R 1151/2007-2.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 52(3), 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94, as well as of general principles of trade mark law as the Board of Appeal wrongly ruled that the applicant gave its consent to the registration of the Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity and, as a result, failed to examine whether a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned exists.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/64

Action brought on 17 December 2008 — Monoscoop v OHIM (SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO)

(Case T-564/08)

(2009/C 44/108)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Monoscoop BV (Alkmaar, Netherlands) (represented by A. Canela Giménez, 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 (OHIM) of 30 September 2008, in Case R 816/2008-2; and

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO’ (Application for registration No 5.769.013) for goods and services in classes 9, 28 and 41.

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/40

Appeal brought on 29 October 2008 by Radu Duta against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 4 September 2008 in Case F-103/07 Duta v Court of Justice

(Case T-475/08 P)

(2009/C 69/93)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Radu Duta (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Krieg, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Admit the present appeal;

— declare it well founded;

— accordingly, by amendment of the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 4 September 2008, declare the appellant's appeal admissible and well founded;

— accordingly, on the basis of the claims set out above, annul the contested decisions;

— so far as necessary, return the matter to the competent authority for a ruling in accordance with the judgment in the appeal;

— order the respondent to pay the sum of EUR 1 100 000 (one million one hundred thousand Euros) in respect of damages and interest;

— so far as necessary, order an expert to give a report on the extent of the financial loss suffered by the appellant;

— order the respondent to pay all the costs and expenses of the case;

— authorise the appellant expressly to refer to his pleadings at first instance which are annexed to the present appeal and form an integral part thereof;

— as to the remainder, authorise the appellant expressly to reserve all his rights of actions and remedies and in particular the right to bring an action before the European Court of Human Rights.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 4 September 2008, delivered in Case F-103/07 Duta v Court of Justice, dismissing as inadmissible the action by which the appellant sought, on the one hand, annulment of the memorandum informing him that he would not be offered a post as a Legal Secretary and, on the other, damages in compensation for the loss allegedly suffered.

The appellant states that his appeal is lodged as a protective measure in order to maintain his rights before the European Court of Human Rights. He does not give precise details of the contested points in the judgment of which he seeks annulment, or the legal arguments made in specific support of that claim.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/31

Action brought on 12 December 2008 — X-Technology Swiss v OHIM (representation of a sock)

(Case T-547/08)

(2009/C 55/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: X-Technology Swiss GmbH (represented by A. Herbertz and R. Jung, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2008 in Case R 846/2008-4;

— order OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative trade mark as ‘other mark — positional mark’ of the colour ‘orange (Pantone 16-1359 TPX)’ for goods in Class 25 (application No 5 658 117).

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, (1) since the trade mark applied for fulfils the minimum requirement as to distinctive character.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/51

Appeal brought on 26 January 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 4 November 2008 in Case F-18/07 Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-32/09 P)

(2009/C 69/111)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

— In every case (A.1) set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal; (A.2) declare the action at first instance to be admissible in full.

— As a primary remedy: (B.1) uphold in their entirety and without exception the appellant's pleas in law set out in the application at first instance; (B.2) order the respondent to pay the appellant's costs relating to this appeal and to the proceedings at first instance;

— or, in the alternative: (B.3) refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This appeal is directed against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F-18/07 Marcuccio v Commission, which declared the appellant's action to be manifestly inadmissible.

In support of the forms of order sought by him, the appellant raises the following pleas in law:

— Complete failure to state adequate reasons as regards the classification of the note of 11 October 2005 referred to in paragraph 3 of the order under appeal as an application made under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, with the result that, in the case at issue, the provisions of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations were applied.

— Complete failure to state adequate reasons as regard the statements concerning the date on which the note of 11 October 2005 reached the respondent and the date on which the contested decision took effect.

— Unlawful findings as regards the alleged manifest inadmissibility of the action at first instance in its entirety.

Complete failure to state adequate reasons and a failure to make preliminary enquiries as regards the date on which the defence was lodged and a procedural error in that no account was taken of the requirement not to have regard to the arguments contained in the defence in so far as made out of time.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/30

Action brought on 11 February 2009 — Cafea v OHIM — Christian (BEST FARM)

(Case T-53/09)

2009/C 90/47

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cafea GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Schumann and M. Hartmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dieter Christian (Frankfurt, Germany)

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 27 November 2008 in Case R 420/2008-1;

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

— order the applicant for a Community trade mark to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the appeal proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dieter Christian

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BEST FARM’ for goods in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 32 (Registration No 3 089 281)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant acting under its previous corporate name KORD Beiteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘BESTFORM’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 42 (No 300 563 34)

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), because there exists a likelihood of confusion, or at least a likelihood of association, between the conflicting marks

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/941 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)
—

The applicant alleges that the Commission acted ultra vires or misused its powers, in so far as the legal basis chosen for the contents of the specific Decision ‘not to pursue’ the Italian measures at issue is inadequate. It is submitted in that connection that, by deciding that the amendments which had meanwhile been made to the regulatory framework would ensure that there would be no grounds in future for the misgivings expressed in its preliminary assessment of 31 January 2007, the Commission has adopted under Article 21 of the Regulation a type of decision which that provision does not envisage. In fact, the Commission has used the powers conferred upon it under Article 21 to declare compatible with Community law certain measures of general application adopted by a Member State, which have nothing to do with the specific concentration which Italy's adoption of the national measures at issue was intended to block.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/21

Action brought on 13 February 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Bariatrix Europe (PROTI SNACK)

(Case T-62/09)

2009/C 102/34

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS (Guilherand Granges, France)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 December 2008 in case R 740/2008-4; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “PROTI SNACK”, for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — application No 4 992 145

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

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 39 702 429 of the word mark “PROTI” for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration No 39 608 644 of the figurative mark “PROTIPOWER” for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration No 39 549 559 of the word mark “PROTIPLUS” for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration No 39 629 195 of the trade word “PROTITOP” for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to provide an assessment on the merits of the opposition; Infringement of Article 74(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal refused to exercise its discretion or at least failed to state how it exercised such discretion; Misuse of power as the Board of Appeal failed to take into account documents and evidence submitted by the applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/23

Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Micro Shaping Ltd v OHIM (>packaging)

(Case T-64/09)

2009/C 102/36

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Micro Shaping Ltd (Worthing, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

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 11 December 2008 — Appeal R 1063/2008-1 — in relation to Community trade mark application No 006354311 ‘>packaging’;

— Order the applicant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘>packaging’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 17 and 42 (Application No 6 354 311)

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, (1) because the mark applied for has the necessary distinctive character and there is no need to retain availability, and of the right to be heard under Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/38

Action brought on 25 February 2009 — Gråhundbus v/Jørgen Andersen v Commission

(Case T-87/09)

2009/C 113/77

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gråhundbus v/Jørgen Andersen (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Nissen, J. Rivas de Andrés, J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the definitive position of the Commission concerning the Copenhagen-Ystad route contained in paragraphes 75, 76 and 145 of the Decision of the Commission dated 10 September 2008 with regard to State Aid case C 41/08 (NN 35/08) — Danske Statsbaner;

— in the alternative, annul the decision of the Commission dated 10 September 2008 with regard to State Aid case C 41/08 (NN 35/08) — Danske Statsbaner;

— order that the Commission pay the cost incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission decision of 10 September 2008 to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC in respect of the State aid allegedly granted by Denmark to Danske Statsbaner (‘DSB’) for rail passenger transport between Copenhagen and Ystad through the public service contracts between Danish Ministry of Transport and the public enterprise DSB (Case C 41/08 (NN 35/08) — Danske Statsbaner). Interested parties were invited to submit their comments (1).

The applicant operates bus passenger transport on the route Copenhagen-Ystad.

In support of its application, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.

First, it claims that the Commission erred in law when deciding that the Danish government did not incur in a manifest error of appreciation when considering that the Copenhagen-Ystad route constituted a public service or service of general economic interest.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law when it did not raise doubts with regard to the qualification of the Copenhagen-Ystad route as public service obligation or a service of general economic interest or a public service in view of the information in its possession. It argues that the Commission should not have accepted the arguments submitted by the Danish government without further debate or examination.

Third, the applicant contends that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasoning to its decision in violation of its obligation under Article 253 EC as the only reasoning provided in the decision consists in repeating the arguments of the Danish government.

(1) OJ 2008 C 309, p. 14