ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 273/17

Action brought on 6 July 2012 — Torrefacção Camelo v OHIM — Pato Hermanos (Decoration of packaging for coffee)

(Case T-302/12)

2012/C 273/29

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Torrefacção Camelo Lda (Campo Maior, Portugal) (represented by: J. Massaguer Fuentes, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lorenzo Pato Hermanos, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should declare, in view of the lodging of this pleading and the documents attached to it, that the direct action against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 17 April 2012 in Case R 2378/2010-3 has been lodged within the prescribed period and in the correct form and, following the appropriate procedural steps, deliver judgment upholding the present action, thereby annulling the contested decision and upholding the decision of the Cancellation Division of 26 November 2010 which declared invalid Community design No 0 0070 6940-0001, and expressly order Lorenzo Patos Hermanos, SA to pay the costs if it opposes the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: design with a red background, coffee beans with a white outline scattered at random over the red background, and two upper and lower horizontal yellow borders placed over the red background, for goods in Class 99-00 of the Locarno Classification — Community design No 0 0070 6940-0001

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Lorenzo Pato Hermanos, SA

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: infringement of Articles 4 to 9 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Pleas in law: infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/28

Action brought on 1 August 2012 — Fuchs/OHIM — Les Complices (Star)

(Case T-342/12)

2012/C 295/51

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Max Fuchs (Freyung, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Les Complices SA (Montreuil-sous-Bois, France)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 May 2012 in case R 2040/2011-5;

— Reject the opposition No 1299967 in its entirety; and

— Order the defendant and the other party before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark representing a black star, for goods in classes 18, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 5588694

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 632232 of the figurative mark representing a white star in a black circle, for goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24 and 28; French trade mark registration No 1579557 of the figurative mark representing a white star in a black circle, for goods in class 25

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/34

Action brought on 24 July 2012 — Mundipharma v OHIM — AFP Pharmaceuticals (Maxigesic)

(Case T-328/12)

2012/C 287/63

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Mundipharma GmbH (Limburg an der Lahn, Germany) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AFP Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Takapuna, New Zealand)

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 23 May 2012 in Case R 1788/2010-4;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: AFP Pharmaceuticals Ltd

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Maxigesic’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark application No 7 056 104

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘OXYGESIC’ for goods in Class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the opposition was rejected

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita, since the CST, firstly, extended the subject-matter of the dispute by annulling the Commission’s decision not only because it refuses any prolongation of Mr Macchia’s contract, but also because of its refusal to award him a new contract, while the petition in the application at first instance referred only to the annulment of the Commission’s decision not to renew his contract and, secondly, distorted the subject-matter of the dispute by holding that there was no need to examine the complaint of the applicant at first instance, Mr Macchia, that the ground for refusal based on the eight-year rule, despite the fact that that complaint lay at the heart of the action at first instance.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/12

Action brought on 6 August 2012 — Debonair Trading Internacional v OHIM — Ibercosmetica (SÔ:UNIC)

(Case T-356/12)

2012/C 311/16

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funcha, Madeira) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ibercosmetica, SA de CV (Mexico City, Mexico)

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 4 June 2012 in case R 1033/2011-4;

— Order the other party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

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 ‘SÔ:UNIC’, for goods in class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8197972

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: A series of 24 Community, International, UK and Irish registered trade marks consisting of the word ‘SO’ combined with other material, for goods in class 3; A series of 17 unregistered signs consisting of the word ‘SO’ combined with other material, used in connection with goods in class 3

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) of Council Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Rule 15(2)(b)(iii) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/32

Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Fetim v OHIM — Solid Floor (Solidfloor The professional's choice)

(Case T-395/12)

2012/C 355/68

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Fetim BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Bakers, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Solid Floor Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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 15 June 2012 in case R 884/2011-2; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Solidfloor The professional’s choice’, for goods in class 19 — Community trade mark application No 5667837

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: United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2390415 of the figurative mark ‘SOLID floor’, for goods in classes 19 and 37; Trade name ‘Solid Floor Ltd’ used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom; Domain name ‘SOLID floor’ used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, upheld the opposition in its entirety and rejected the CTM application

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 August 2012 — Demon International v OHIM — Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo (DEMON)

(Case T-380/12)

(2012/C 331/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Demon International, LC (Orem, United States) (represented by: T. Krüger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo (Thiene (VI), Italy)

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 20 June 2012 in Case R 1845/2011-4;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the action and of the appeal proceedings R 1845/2011-4.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘Demon’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark No 6 375 398

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Demon International, LC

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: International word mark ‘DEMON’ for goods in Class 28

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was allowed and the application for a declaration of invalidity dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 106(2), 107(1) and 107(3) TFEU and manifest error of assessment, by reason of erroneously concluding that retail network costs, which are induced by the universal service obligation, should not be taken into account when calculating the amount of profits from the reserved area of the universal service that exceed the level of a reasonable profit.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/37

Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v OHIM (VALORES DE FUTURO)

(Case T-428/12)

2012/C 366/75

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda Sousa and N. González-Alberto Rodríguez, 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 part of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 July 2012 in Case R 2299/2011-2 which confirms the refusal to register Community trade mark No 9 408 758; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘VALORES DE FUTURO’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 36 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 9 408 758

Decision of the Examiner: rejection in part of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

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

First plea in law, alleging an incorrect statement of the facts in the contested decision, which includes, inter alia: — a finding that the applicant had no competitive presence in the Digital Districts of Birmingham comprising Digbeth, Eastside and the Jewellery Quarter (the ‘Relevant Area’); — a finding that the Relevant Area has only a modest next generation access (‘NGA’) broadband capability consisting of BT Group plc's planned Fibre-to-the-cabinet (‘FTTC’) roll-out in a part of the area; — a finding that broadband speeds in the relevant area are substantially limited to low end (20 Mbps download and 2 Mbps upload); — a finding that the market has failed because certain specific services are not available to a category of small and medium sized enterprises (‘SMEs’) in the area at prices they can afford; — a finding that no party had any objection to Birmingham City Council's NGA broadband scheme relating to the Digital Districts (the ‘Scheme’); — a finding that the mapping and consultation process confirms that the Scheme will not have a negative impact upon competition.
—

In consequence, annul — Council Implementing Decision 2012/424/CFSP of 23 July 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and the corrigendum thereto of 9 August 2012, in so far as those measures affect the applicant; — and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 673/2012 of 23 July 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and the corrigendum thereto of 9 August 2012, in so far as those measures affect the applicant;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/53

Action brought on 6 November 2012 — CeWe Color v OHIM (SMILECARD)

(Case T-484/12)

2013/C 26/108

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG (Oldenburg, Germany) (represented by U. Sander, lawyer)

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 3 September 2012 in Case R 2279/2011-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SMILECARD’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 9 861 691

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009
—

In the alternative, annul the defendant’s decision of 28 August 2012 on account of its failure to take into account the requirements arising from the judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 in Case T-300/10;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/63

Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM (NOTFALL CREME)

(Case T-504/12)

2013/C 26/124

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH (Trebur, Germany) (represented by F. Traub and H. Daniel, 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 20 September 2012 in Case R 271/2012-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark, including the word element ‘NOTFALL CREME’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5 — Community trade mark application No 10 107 134

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/56

Action brought on 14 November 2012 — Biscuits Poult v OHIM — Banketbakkerij Merba (Biscuits)

(Case T-494/12)

2013/C 26/114

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Biscuits Poult (Montauban, France) (represented by: C. Chapoullié, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Banketbakkerij Merba BV (Oosterhout, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

— Annul or at least vary the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2012 in Case R 914/2011-3;

— uphold the decision of the Invalidity Division which declared that Design No 001114292-0001 was valid;

— dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity registered under reference ICD 000007120; and

— order Banketbakkerij Merba BV 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: Design of a soft-centred biscuit, for biscuits in Class 01-01 — Community design No 001114292-0001

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Banketbakkerij Merba BV

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Articles 4 to 9 of Regulation No 6/2002

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and the Community design declared invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 4(2) and of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/18

Action brought on 6 December 2012 — Tifosi Optics v OHIM — Tom Tailor (T)

(Case T-531/12)

2013/C 46/34

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tifosi Optics, Inc. (Watkinsville, United States) (represented by: A. Tornato and D. Hazan, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tom Tailor GmbH (Hamburg, 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 17 September 2012 in case R 729/2011-2, in its entirety; 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: The figurative mark ‘T’, for goods in classes 9 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 8543183

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 1368232 of the figurative mark ‘T’, for goods in classes 9, 18 and 25; Community trade mark registration No 2747996 of the figurative mark ‘T’, for goods in classes 3, 6, 9, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25 and 28

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark application

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/22

Action brought on 27 November 2012 — Pågen Trademark v OHIM (gifflar)

(Case T-520/12)

2013/C 32/34

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Pågen Trademark AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by J. Norderyd, 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 (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 September 2012 (1) in Case R 46/2012-2 and declare that Community trade mark No 1 009 0331 GIFFLAR (fig) applied for by Pågen Trademark AB is to be published and registered, or, in the alternative, order OHIM to publish and register the trade mark;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘gifflar’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 31 — application for registration of Community trade mark No 1 009 0331

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection in part of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

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

— Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009

(1) Translator’s note: The correct date of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case R 46/2012-2 is 18 September 2012 as stated in the OHIM database.