ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/25

Action brought on 5 August 2011 — Golden Balls v OHIM — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS)

(Case T-448/11)

2011/C 298/46

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC, and S. Smith, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intra-Presse (Boulogne-Billancourt, 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 22 June 2011 in case R 1432/2010-1, in so far as it held that the appeal before the Board of Appeal was successful in respect of certain goods and services in classes 9, 28 and 41; and

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs occasioned by this appeal, or alternatively, order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s costs occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned:: The word mark ‘GOLDEN BALLS’ for goods and services in classes 9, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 6036503

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 4226148 of the word mark ‘BALLON D’OR’, for amongst others goods and services in classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 38 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and partially accepted the opposition and the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that there is a perceived conflict between the Community trade mark application and the earlier mark.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging, first, breach of Union law when interpreting and applying the rule of correspondence between the complaint and the action in referring to the judgment of the CST of 1 July 2010 in Case F-45/07 Mandt v Parliament and in taking the view that the new plea alleging breach of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union was admissible despite the fact that it was not raised in the complaint and that it was ‘substantively’ different from the single plea alleging breach of the notice of vacancy put forward in the complaint and, second, breach of Article 91(2) of those Regulations in taking the view that the ‘cause of action’ is correctly defined as ‘challenge by the applicant to the substantive legality of the contested measure or, in the alternative, to its formal legality’, which would strip the pre-litigation procedure of all meaning and would no longer serve the purpose of that procedure which is to facilitate an amicable settlement between the person concerned and the appointing authority.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/39

Action brought on 27 September 2011 — LTTE v Council

(Case T-508/11)

2011/C 347/70

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Herning, Denmark) (represented by: V. Koppe, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 (1) insofar as it concerns the LTTE and determine that Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2) is not applicable to the LTTE;

— In the alternative, apply a less restrictive measure than continued placement on the list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies; and

— Award costs and interest to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging — that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE and/or Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2011 is inapplicable due to a failure to take regard of the law of armed conflict;

2. Second plea in law, alleging — that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE since the applicant cannot be qualified as a terrorist organization as defined in Article 1(3) of the Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP;

3. Third plea in law, alleging — that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE because no decision by a competent authority, as required by Article 1(4) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, has been taken;

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging — that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE since the Council did not conduct any review, as required by Article 1(6) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP;

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging — that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE as the decision does not comply with the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity;

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging — that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE since the decision does not comply with the obligation to state reasons as required by Article 296 TFUE;

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging — that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE because it infringes the applicant’s right of defence to effective judicial protection.

(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 610/2010 and (EU) No 83/2011; OJ 2001 L 188, p. 2

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism; OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 340/31

Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Hartmann v OHIM — Protecsom (DIGNITUDE)

(Case T-504/11)

2011/C 340/60

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Protecsom SAS (Valognes, 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 28 July 2011 in case R 1197/2010-4; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 ‘DIGNITUDE’, for goods in classes 5, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 7506025

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 7436603, of the word mark ‘Dignity’, for goods in class 5; German trade mark registration No 302008076849.5/05, of the word mark ‘Dignity’, for goods in classes 5 and 10

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the opposition

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 made an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion, in particular of the similarity of the goods.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/25

Action brought on 30 September 2011 — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries (LOVOL)

(Case T-524/11)

2011/C 355/45

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Göteborg, Sweden) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries Co., Ltd (Xuanhua, China)

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 19 July 2011 in case R 1870/2010-1;

— Reject the Community trade mark application No 5029731; and

— Order the other party to the proceedings to bear the costs of the applicant in connection with the present proceedings, the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the proceedings before the Opposition division.

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 ‘LOVOL’, for goods in classes 7 and 12 — Community trade mark application No 5029731

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2361087, of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods and services in classes 1-9, 11-12, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-28 and 33-42; Community trade mark application No 4804522, of the figurative mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods and services in classes 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35-39 and 41; UK trade mark registration No 747361, of the figurative mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods in class 12; UK trade mark registration No 747362, of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods in class 12; UK trade mark registration No 1051579, of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods in class 7; UK trade mark registration No 1408143, of the figurative mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods in class 7

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to take all relevant factors into account when comparing the marks, thereby mistakenly found that there was no similarity in the marks. Infringement of a rule of law related to the application of the Regulation, and in particular, the principles established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in cases C-361/04 P, Ruiz-Picasso e.a./OHMI of 12 January 2006, ECR I-643 and case C-252/07, Intel Corporation, ECR I-8823, by applying them in a rigidly formalistic manner, and consequently, by not examining the merits of the opposition under Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 4(3) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in that: — the Commission has not established that the conditions of Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are fulfilled; — t he elements relied on by the Commission are factually inaccurate; and — there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents provided by EIM Business and Policy Research in the framework of the study on ‘Costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods’ (COMP/2009/D1/020).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 362/19

Action brought on 29 September 2011 — Evonik Industries v OHIM — Impulso Industrial Alternativo (Impulso creador)

(Case T-529/11)

2011/C 362/28

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Evonik Industries AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Impulso Industrial Alternativo, SA (Madrid, Spain)

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 20 June 2011 in case R 1101/2010-2; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Impulso creador’, for various goods and services among which services in classes 35, 36, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6146187

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: Spanish trade mark registration No 2633891 of the figurative mark ‘IMPULSO’, for services in classes 35 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 4438206 of the figurative mark ‘IMPULSO’, for services in classes 35 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

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 did not correctly consider the different overall impression of the conflicting trademarks.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/19

Action brought on 7 November 2011 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM

(Case T-571/11)

2012/C 13/41

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyer, and J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupe Chez Gerard Restaurants Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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 28 July 2011 in Case R 1946/2010-1;

— Order the defendant and, where appropriate, the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs, if that other party appears and contests the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Groupe Chez Gerard Restaurants Ltd.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CLUB GOURMET’ for goods in Classes 16, 21, 29, 30, 32 and 33.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark ‘CLUB DEL GOURMET, EN … El Corte Inglés’, applications for the national word mark ‘EL SITIO DEL GOURMET’ and for the national and Community trade marks ‘CLUB DEL GOURMET’ for services in Class 35.

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) and Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue.
—

Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to reject the bid of the applicants filed in response to the open call for tender AO/029/10 (E-Alicante: software development and maintenance services) (1), communicated by letter dated 11.08.2011, and all the related decisions of the OHIM including those to award the respective contract to the first, second and third cascade contractor; and
—

Declare that Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 20 September 2011 in Case No C 35/2010 (ex N 302/2010) on measures which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act is invalid in so far as it provides that the measure is approved as compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
A.

The claims seeking annulment 1. The appellant complains that the CST failed to rule substantially on his application for annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee, which forms part of his personal file and could have an adverse effect on his future career; 2. In the appellant’s opinion, since he challenged two separate measures on different grounds, the CST cannot legitimately refuse to give a ruling, all the more so since, first, that court has always ruled out the possibility of consequential annulment (relating to the related, consequent and prior measures, which are not, however, independent but closely connected to the measures declared invalid and/or ineffective) and, second, the appellant also has a clear interest in a fresh decision on the part of the Appeals Committee, which is the body adjudicating on the substance of the complaint, and, unlike the General Court, can even substitute its own assessment for that given by his superiors; 3. With regard to the challenge to his staff report, the appellant complains that, of its own motion, the CST, first, unlawfully refused to take account of the numerous documented incidents of harassment to which he had been subjected in the course of the year, thus reversing the burden of proof, failed to rule on virtually all the pleas relied on — ranging from claims alleging failure to assess some of his tasks to inappropriate objectives, from failure to consider the exceptional initiative shown to bad faith on the part of his assessor etc; 4. The appellant also alleges that the grounds of the judgment under appeal are erroneous, often as a result of distortion of the application, and failure to rule on the contested unlawful aspects the ‘Guide to staff reports’, which were designed to enable ‘friends’ and not ‘the best’ to be promoted and to evade review by the court, having transformed the annual assessment from an absolute into a relative exercise, and never having specified the conditions under which a performance is to be regarded as excellent, very good, in keeping with expectations or inadequate; 5. Lastly, the appellant complains of the failure to indicate the criteria used to interpret the request he made to the Appeals Committee and to rule out the possibility that, in challenging the fact that he was not promoted, he did not intend to challenge only the promotions decided on by the EIB that are documented.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/27

Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Viejo Valle v OHIM — Etablissements Coquet (Soup-plate with grooves)

(Case T-567/11)

2012/C 32/56

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Viejo Valle, SA (L'Olleria, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Etablissements Coquet SA (Saint Léonard de Noblat, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare the present action, together with its annexes, admissible;

— annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 July 2011, in Case R 1055/2010-3;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design No 384.912-0009, representing a decorated service set; a soup-plate.

Proprietor of the Community design: the applicant.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Etablissements Coquet SA.

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, since the Community design constitutes an unauthorised use of a work protected by the copyright legislation of a Member State.

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissed the action.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and Article 28(1)(b)(iii) of Regulation No 2245/2002, since the defendant has not sufficiently documented the protected work on which the application for a declaration of invalidity is based, nor provided details of its proprietorship, nor its object.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/30

Action brought on 22 November 2011 — Pêra-Grave v OHIM — Fundação De Almeida (QTA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA)

(Case T-602/11)

2012/C 32/63

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pêra-Grave Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal, Lda (Évora, Portugal) (represented by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda Sousa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fundação Eugénio De Almeida (Évora, 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 19 September 2011 in case R 1797/2010-2 with the consequence that the opposition directed against the trade mark applied for will be rejected in its entirety and therefore the registration of the trade mark applied for will be allowed in its entirety; and

— Order the defendant to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the applicant in connection of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘QTA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA’, for goods in class 33 — Community trade mark application No 7291669

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: Portuguese trade mark registration No 283684 of the figurative mark ‘VINHO PÊRAMANCA TINTO’, for goods in class 33; Portuguese trade mark registration No 308864 of the figurative mark ‘VINHO PÊRAMANCA BRANCO’, for goods in class 33; Portuguese trade mark application No 405797 of the figurative mark ‘PÊRAMANCA’, for goods in class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the opposition and the appeal, annulled the contested decision and rejected the CTM application for all the contested goods

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) erred in law in diminishing the overall weight of the numerous visual, aural and conceptual dissimilarities between the signs and in increasing and therefore overestimating the overall impact of the only common element they contain, the verbal elements ‘PERA’ and ‘MANCA’; and (ii) misapplied the principles and the approach established by the General Court in case T-332/05 ‘TERRANUS/TERRA’ to the case sub judice and wrongly considered that the degree of overall similarity between the confronted signs was sufficient to lead to a likelihood of confusion.