ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/32

Action brought on 30. September 2013 — Kenzo/OHIM — Tsujimoto (KENZO ESTATE)

(Case T-528/13)

2013/C 367/56

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kenzo (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it accepted International registration No. 1016724 designating the European Union for the mark ‘Kenzo Estate’ for: ‘Olive oil (for food); grape seed oil (for food); edible oils and fats; raisins; processed vegetables and fruits; frozen vegetables; frozen fruits; raw pulses; processed meat products; processed seafood’ in class 29; ‘Confectionery, bread and buns; wine vinegar; olive dressing; seasonings (other than spices); spices; sandwiches; pizzas; hot dogs (sandwiches); meat pies; ravioli’ in class 30; and ‘Grapes (fresh); olives (fresh); fruits (fresh); vegetables (fresh); seeds and bulbs’ in class 31;

— order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings;

— order Kenzo Tsujimoto to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KENZO ESTATE’ for goods and services in classes 29, 30, 31, 35, 41 and 43 — International Registration No W 1 016 724

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark ‘KENZO’ for goods in classes 3, 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Manifest error of appraisal of the facts on which the Council decision is based

In the context of this plea, the applicant argues inter alia that the contested legal acts were obviously decided on the basis of incorrect assumptions and are contrary to the judgments of the General Court in Case T-63/12 Oil Turbo Compressor v Council [2012] ECR II-0000 and Case T-404/11 TCMFG v Council [2013] ECR II-0000. The applicant submits that there are no facts which could sufficiently substantiate and justify the defendant’s decision and the consequent infringement of the applicant's fundamental rights.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 377/18

Action brought on 21 October 2013 — MHCS v OHIM — Compañía Vinícola del Norte de España (ICE IMPERIAL)

(Case T-555/13)

2013/C 377/41

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: MHCS (Epernay, France) (represented by: P. Boutron, N. Moya Fernández and L.-É. Balleydier, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compañía Vinícola del Norte de España, SA (La Guardia, Spain)

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 14 August 2013 given in Case R 2588/2011-2;

— Grant Community trade mark application No 8 837 379 for the word mark ‘ICE IMPERIAL’ for goods in Class 33;

— Order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those incurred during the proceedings before the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ICE IMPERIAL’ for goods and services in Classes 32, 33 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 8 837 379

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: Community trade mark registration No 237 875 of the figurative mark for ‘all kinds of wine except sparkling wine and sherry’ in Class 33; Spanish trade mark registration No 95 020 of the figurative mark for ‘any class of wines except sparkling wine and sherry wine’ in Class 33; Spanish trade mark registration No 1 508 304 of the word mark ‘IMPERIAL’ for ‘wines’ in Class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) CTMR and Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995.
—

The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1704/2012-2) is overturned insofar as the EU-designation of International registration no. 1103198 GREASECUTTER is rejected.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/27

Action brought on 8 November 2013 — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure v OHIM — Gauff (Gauff JBG Ingenieure)

(Case T-585/13)

2014/C 24/48

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: G. Schneider-Rothhaar, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 596/2013-1);

— refer the case back to OHIM, recommending that it proceed to restitutio in integrum;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘Gauff JBG Ingenieure’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 11, 19, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 992 967

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark and Community word mark ‘Gauff’ and German figurative mark and Community figurative mark ‘GAUFF’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the application for restitutio in integrum and rejection of the appeal as inadmissible.

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 81 of Regulation No 207/2009.
—

annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 11 September 2013 and, consequently, grant Community figurative mark No 11 094 381 for all of the goods in respect of which it is requested in Class 30;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/24

Action brought on 29 October 2013 — Sharp v OHIM (BIG PAD)

(Case T-567/13)

2014/C 24/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sharp KK (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: G. Macias Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda and E. Armero, 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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 August 2013 given in Case R 2131/2012-2;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘BIG PAD’ for goods and services in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 10 887 231

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/35

Action brought on 4 November 2013 — Real Express v OHIM — MIP Metro (real)

(Case T-580/13)

2014/C 45/61

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Real Express Srl (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: C. Anitoae, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

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 16 September 2013 given in Case R 1519/2012-4;

— Order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in blue and red containing the verbal element ‘real’ for goods and services in Classes 3 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 512 609

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Romanian trade marks Nos 38 089 and 80 065

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/23

Action brought on 20 November 2013 — alfavet Tierarzneimittel v OHIM — Millet Innovation (Epibac)

(Case T-613/13)

2014/C 39/40

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: alfavet Tierarzneimittel GmbH (Neumünster, Germany) (represented by: U. Bender, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Millet Innovation SA (Loriol sur Drome, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 6 September 2013 (Case R 1253/2012-4) in such a way that the opposition is rejected, and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘Epibac’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 31 — Community trade mark application No 6861124

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Millet Innovation SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word marks ‘EPITACT’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 10

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/15

Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Steinbeck v OHIM — Alfred Sternjakob (BE HAPPY)

(Case T-707/13)

2014/C 61/26

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Steinbeck GmbH (Fulda, Germany) (represented by: M. Heinrich and M. Fischer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG (Frankenthal, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 in Case R 31/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘BE HAPPY’ for goods in Classes 9, 11 and 18 — Community trade mark No 8 666 083

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of that regulation

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/38

Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (DARJEELING collection de lingerie)

(Case T-626/13)

2014/C 45/66

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France)

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 17 September 2013 given in Case R 1501/2012-2;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Darjeeling collection de lingerie’ for Classes 25, 35 and 38 — the Community trade mark application No 9 468 463

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community collective trade mark registration No 4 325 718 of the word mark ‘DARJEELING’ for goods in Class 30; Community collective trade mark registration No 8 674 327 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DARJEELING’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/44

Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Meta Group v European Commission

(Case T-696/13)

2014/C 52/84

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Meta Group Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Bartolini, V. Colcelli and A. Formica, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that the reductions made by the European Commission on the subsidies granted to META S.r.l are unlawful;

— And, consequently, order the Commission to pay the applicant the additional amount of EUR 129 153,11, together with default interest;

— Order the administration to compensate the applicant for the consequential loss suffered by it.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against the decisions of the Commission which reduced the grant initially provided for the projects ‘Bcreative’, ‘Take-It-Up’ and ‘Ecolink +’, which grant agreements were concluded between the applicant and the defendant in the context of the ‘Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) (2007 — 2013)’.

Several decisions concerning those projects were also contested in Cases T — 471/12, T — 34/13 and T — 35/13, Meta Group v Commission.

The pleas in law and main arguments set out are identical to those raised in those cases.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/16

Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel — OHIM — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)

(Case T-710/13)

2014/C 61/28

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Koerl, E. Celenk and S. Vollmer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tiertafel Deutschland eV (Rathenow, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General 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 17 October 2013 in Case R 1074/2012-4;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘Tafel’ for services in Classes 39 and 45 — Community trade mark No 8 985 541.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Tiertafel Deutschland e.V.

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and the applicant’s bad faith under Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and mark declared invalid.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/13

Action brought on 24 December 2013 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello)

(Case T-715/13)

2014/C 78/27

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz and A. Marx, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Horno del Espinar, SL (El Espinar, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 October 2013 given in Case R 2338/2012-2;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Castello’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 et 31 — Community trade mark application No 6 819 941

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: Community trade mark registration No 4 199 907 for goods and services in Classes 30, 35 and 39 and Spanish trade marks for goods and services in Classes 30, 35 and 39

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 75, 79 and 8(1)(b) CTMR.
—

annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State Aid that is incompatible with the internal market;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/9

Action brought on 16 July 2014 — CW v Council

(Case T-516/13)

2014/C 351/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CW (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Tekari, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Implementing Decision 2013/409/CFSP of 30 July 2013 applying Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay damages in the amount of EUR 1 00 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary and material harm suffered by the applicant;

— order the Council of the European Union to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging an absence of legal basis for Decision 2013/409/CFSP (1), inasmuch as that decision is based on a ground other than that set out in Article 1 of Decision 2011/72/CFSP (2), which constitutes the legal basis for the former decision.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property, in so far as the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant amount to an unjustified restriction of his right to property.

(1) Council Implementing Decision 2013/409/CFSP of 30 July 2013 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2013 L 204, p. 52).

(2) Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 62).
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and non-disclosure of the relative merits of the successful tenderers — art. 113 par. 2 of the Financial Regulation and of Article 161 par. 2 and 3 of the Delegated Regulation and infringement of an essential procedural requirement- of the principle of the right to an effective remedy; — Although the subject matter of the tender being of high technical complexity and strategic importance, the content of the extracts of the Evaluation Report are short, superficial, simplistic, lacking indication of the strong and weak points of the evaluated tenders, limited to ‘qualifications’ without describing at all the substance of the answer. For some of the sub-criteria there is absolutely no motivation explaining the scores of the tenderers whereas the comments of the Evaluation Committee are often inconsistent with the scores awarded to the different tenderers. The deficiencies of the motivation of the attacked Decision impede the judicial review of the contested Decision, infringing the principle of the right to an effective remedy.