ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/23

Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Cargill v Council

(Case T-117/14)

2014/C 151/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cargil SACI (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/34

Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Mabrouk v Council

(Case T-277/14)

2014/C 194/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mohamed Marouen Ben Ali Bel Ben Mohamed Mabrouk (Carthage, Tunisia) (represented by: J. Farthouat, J. Mignard, N. Boulay, lawyers, and S. Crosby, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that the defendant has infringed Article 265 TFUE by failing to act upon the request of the applicant of 17 January 2014, of which it acknowledged receipt, to disclose the evidence upon which it relies to freeze the assets of the applicant in the European Union; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

The applicant alleges that the defendant is under a legal duty to disclose to the applicant the evidence upon which it relies to freeze the applicant’s assets, and that the defendant was formally called upon to disclose this evidence and was thus fully called upon to act. It has not acted either by disclosing the evidence or by refusing to do so, and it has thus infringed Article 265 TFEU.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/32

Action brought on 31 March 2014 — Mo Industries v OHIM (Splendid)

(Case T-203/14)

2014/C 212/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mo Industries LLC (Los Angeles, United States) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, 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 First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2014 given in Case R 1542/2013-1;

— 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 element ‘Splendid’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 6 13 131

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/30

Action brought on 22 April 2014 — EEB v Commission

(Case T-250/14)

2014/C 194/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Stothers, Solicitor, M. Van Kerckhove and C. Simphal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the implied decision of the European Commission of 13 February 2014 deemed under Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) as a negative reply refusing to release complete and unredacted copies of correspondence with two Member States regarding their proposed Transitional National Plans (TNPs), exempting certain combustion plants from new emission limits between 2016 and 2020;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s 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 that the defendant has unlawfully relied on Article 4(2) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a case where this is specifically precluded by Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (2).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has unlawfully failed to interpret the exceptions of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a restrictive way as required by Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and Article 4(4) of the Aarhus Convention.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has unlawfully consulted third parties under Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a case where it is clear that the document should have been disclosed, and unlawfully relied on this consultation to extend its time to respond.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has unlawfully failed to consider which parts of a document are covered by any exception and release the remainder under Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

5. Fifth plea in laws, alleging that by delaying access, the defendant has unlawfully failed to provide early and effective opportunities for the public to participate during the preparation, modification and review of the TNPs when all options are still open as required by Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006.

(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)

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/37

Action brought on 5 May 2014 — Hipp v OHIM — Nestlé Nutrition (Praebiotik)

(Case T-315/14)

2014/C 212/48

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Hipp & Co. (Sachseln, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, A. Wagner and S. Brandstätter, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nestlé Nutrition GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, 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 26 February 2014 in Cases R 1171/2012-4 and R 1326/2012-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: the word mark ‘Praebiotik’ for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 32 — Community trade mark No 3 83 919

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Nestlé Nutrition GmbH

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for cancellation was granted in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the contested decision was partially annulled to the effect that the disputed mark was declared to be revoked in its entirety. The appeal of Hipp & Co. was dismissed.

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

— Infringement of Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
—

Annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26), Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 91), Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 33), in so far as they concern the applicant;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/23

Action brought on 16 April 2014 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi)

(Case T-249/14)

2014/C 235/32

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Masafi Co. LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hd1 Ltd (Huddersfield, United Kingdom)

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 17 February 2014 given in Case R 1131/2013-4;

— Order the other party to the proceedings, should it intervene, 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 in black and white containing the verbal element ‘masafi’ for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32

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: The United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 5 51 560for the word ‘masafi’

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)(a) and (b) CTMR
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/29

Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Ingeperfil v Commission

(Case T-393/14)

2014/C 245/39

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ingeperfil, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.C. García Muñoz, J.I. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-392/14.
Infringement of the principle of equal treatment by reason of the establishment of a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor for all sectors, failing thereby to take into account the fact that the sectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage, including that of cement production, ought to be treated in a manner different to sectors which are not exposed to such a significant risk;

and infringement of the principle of proportionality.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/49

Action brought on 29 May 2014 — Sequoia Capital Operations v OHIM — Sequoia Capital (SEQUOIA CAPITAL)

(Case T-369/14)

2014/C 253/64

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sequoia Capital Operations LLC (Menlo Park, United States) (represented by: F. Delord and A. Rendle, Solicitors, and G. Hollingworth, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sequoia Capital LLP (London, United Kingdom)

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 18 March 2014 in Case R 1457/2013-4;

— Condemn the Office and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs of the proceedings before the Office and the General Court and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘SEQUOIA CAPITAL’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 7 4 65 347

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Sequoia Capital LLP

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark No 4 1 02 141‘SEQUOIA’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 36

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The request was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/31

Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS)

(Case T-253/14)

2014/C 253/45

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Chemo Ibérica, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M.I. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

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

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

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 10 February 2014 in Case R 1022/2013-4, and accordingly order that figurative Community trade mark No 1 0 2 49 035‘EXELTIS’ should be granted in relation to Class 5 of the International Classification;

— order the defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Chemo Ibérica, SA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘EXELTIS’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 2 49 035

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Novartis AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘EXELON’ for goods in Class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Application rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/57

Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Gasiber 2000 v Commission

(Case T-428/14)

2014/C 253/76

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Gasiber 2000, SL (Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; and

— order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-392/14 Gutser v Commission.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaty on European Union, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the defendant having violated the applicants’ rights to be treated in a fair, equitable and non-arbitrary manner and the applicants’ right to protection of their reputation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/62

Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

(Case T-452/14)

2014/C 253/84

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Vickers, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1 of the contested decision, in so far as the decision in substance indicates that Cholic Acid FGK is authorised for the Orphacol Indications; or in the alternative annul Article 1 of the decision in its entirety; and

— order that the Commission pays the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is the marketing authorisation holder of the orphan medicinal product Orphacol, which is authorised for the treatment of two very rare and serious genetic liver disorders and whose active ingredient is cholic acid. Orphacol benefits as of 16 September 2013 from a 10-year period of market exclusivity in respect of these two indications in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation No 141/2000 (1).

By the contested decision dated 4 April 2014, the Commission granted a marketing authorisation for another orphan medicinal product (Cholic Acid FGK) with cholic acid as the active ingredient. Although Cholic Acid FGK was authorised for three other therapeutic indications than those for which Orphacol was authorised, the Summary of Product Characteristics and the Assessment Report for Cholic Acid FGK, which according to the applicant form an integral part of the contested decision, contained extensive references to the efficacy as well as references to the safety of Cholic Acid FGK in the therapeutic indications for which Orphacol was authorised.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 141/2000, as the Commission has, by granting a marketing authorisation for Cholic Acid FGK on the terms set out in the Summary of Product Characteristics and the Assessment Report, circumvented the applicant’s market exclusivity, since the terms upon which the marketing authorisation for Cholic Acid FGK was granted imply, in substance, that Cholic Acid FGK is also authorised for the two therapeutic indications for which Orphacol is authorised.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/29

Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Cipriani/OHIM — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)

(Case T-343/14)

2014/C 261/53

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Arrigo Cipriani (Venice, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, S. Bergia, and G. Sironi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hotel Cipriani (Venice, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Cancel the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2014 in Case R 224/2012-4 and declare the nullity, pursuant to Article 52(1)(b) and Article 53(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in connection with Article 8.3 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property, of the trademark ‘Cipriani’ No 115824 held by Hotel Cipriani for all goods and services for which the trademark is registered or;

— Subordinately, for all goods or services other than ‘hotels and hotel reservation’ services or;

— Subordinately in relation to services of ‘restaurants, cafeterias, public eating places, bars, catering, delivery of drinks and beverages for immediate consumption’ or;

— Remit the proceedings to the OHIM so that it may issue that declaration of nullity;

— Order that Mr Arrigo Cipriani’s costs for these proceedings be entirely reimbursed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘CIPRIANI’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 35 and 42 — Community trade mark No 115 824

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Hotel Cipriani

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The trade mark had been registered in bad faith and infringed the right to a renowned personal name ‘CIPRIANI’

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Violation of Article 53(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to article 8.3 of the Italian Code of Industrial Property;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission could not assert jurisdiction over the applicant’s conduct failed to demonstrate that the applicant participated in an infringement that it can sanction under Article 101 of the TFEU, since the object of its alleged anti-competitive behavior did not concern the EEA market and its alleged involvement in the anti-competitive behavior could not have and did not have any effect on trade in the EEA market.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/39

Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Rintisch v OHIM — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)

(Case T-382/14)

2014/C 282/51

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: Compagnie laitière européenne SA (Conde Sur Vire, France)

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 14 March 2014 given in Case R 609/2011-4;

— 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 word mark ‘PROTICURD’ for goods in Classes 5 and 29 — International Registration No 9 81 041 designating the European Union

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trademarks Nos 3 9 7 02 429, 3 9 5 49 559 and 3 9 6 08 644

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

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

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) CTMR.
2.

Second ground of appeal alleges an infringement of the right to an effective remedy, in so far as, without having the questions requested at his disposal, the appellant was deprived of the means of an effective remedy against the decision to reject his application.