ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by incorrect calculation of the fine — The departure from the basic rule in paragraph 13 of the guidelines on the method of setting fines as regards the establishment of the reference year is arbitrary, since it is not sufficiently substantiated. — Further, it is contradictory and infringes the prohibition of ne bis in idem, in the assessment of the seriousness of the infringement in the context of the calculation of the basic amount to address a single and repeated or single and continuous infringement, the seriousness of which is assessed in a uniform manner at 15 %, and at the same time to establish a further penalty of 2 % in respect of the participation in certain aspects of this global cartel. The defendant ought to have had regard to the fact that the applicants were not responsible for the entire cartel when calculating the basic amount. — In designating the applicants as ancillary or accessory participants, the defendant should have based its claim on the actual role of the applicants in the global cartel, and not, however, on a random and meaningless amount of evidence. — The reduction in the fine of 5 % is too small and does not properly reflect the different impact of the cartel organisers and main participants and the only very minor participation of the applicants.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 339/20

Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Sheraton International IP v OHIM — Staywell Hospitality Group (PARK REGIS)

(Case T-536/14)

2014/C 339/24

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sheraton International IP LLC (Stamford, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (Sydney, Australia)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 April 2014 given in joined Cases R 240/2013-5 and R 303/2013-5;

— 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 ‘PARK REGIS’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 4 88 933

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: CTM registrations, International trade mark registrations and well-known mark ‘ST REGIS’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

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 329/24

Action brought on 23 July 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (COMPETITION)

(Case T-550/14)

2014/C 329/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, 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 First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2014 in Case R 2082/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘COMPETITION’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 69 171

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) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/20

Action brought on 1 August 2014 — Birkenstock Sales v OHIM (representation of a surface pattern)

(Case T-579/14)

2014/C 351/25

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Birkenstock Sales GmbH (Vettelschoß, Germany) (represented by C. Menebröcker and V. Töbelmann, 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 First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2014 in Case R 1952/2013-1;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the international registration of the figurative mark representing a surface patter for goods in Classes 10, 18 and 25 — International registration No 1 1 32742

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
—

order the European Union to pay full and sufficient compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicants have suffered as a result of the European Union’s unlawful conduct, corresponding to the following amounts, together with compensatory and default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points, starting from the date when the application was submitted: — EUR 1 1 93 467 for losses suffered as a result of paying the additional legal interest applied to the nominal amount of the fine beyond a reasonable period; — EUR 1 87 571 for losses suffered as a result of making additional bank guarantee payments beyond a reasonable period; — EUR 2 0 00 000 for profits lost and/or losses suffered as a result of ‘uncertainty’, and — EUR 5 00 000 for the non-material damage suffered;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/19

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Souruh v Council

(Case T-599/14)

2014/C 361/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

— in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 10 000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/15

Action brought on 25 July 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello)

(Case T-549/14)

2014/C 351/17

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 Harmonisation 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 Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 April 2014 given in joined Cases R 1233/2013-2 and R 1258/2013-2;

— 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 word mark ‘Castello’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 31 — Community trade mark application No 6 819 973

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: Numerous earlier Community and national trade marks containing, inter alia, the verbal element ‘Castelló’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially upheld the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/12

Action brought on 30 July 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION)

(Case T-569/14)

2014/C 361/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, 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 27 May 2014 in case R 122/2014-4;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 22 961

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) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/22

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-606/14)

2014/C 361/34

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

— in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

(1) OJ C 290, p. 13.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 380/19

Action brought on 1 September 2014 — Red Lemon Incorporation v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)

(Case T-643/14)

2014/C 380/25

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Red Lemon Incorporation (Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, 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 15 May 2014 in Case R 1899/2013-1 and reject the opposition;

— 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 word mark ‘ABTRONIC’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 8 1 84 632

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 international registration of the word mark ‘TRONIC’ for goods in Class 9

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition 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 380/24

Appeal brought on 17 September 2014 by Robert Klar and Francisco Fernandez Fernandez against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 July 2014 in Case F-114/13, Klar and Fernandez Fernandez v Commission

(Case T-665/14 P)

2014/C 380/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Robert Klar (Grevenmacher, Luxembourg) and Francisco Fernandez Fernandez (Steinsel, Luxembourg) (represented by A. Salerno, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 July 2014;

— refer the case to the Civil Service Tribunal for a determination on the merits;

— order the European Commission to bear all of the costs of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellants rely on a single plea in law alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal incorrectly held that the action was clearly inadmissible, for lack of a properly conducted pre-litigation procedure, in so far as the note of the Appointing Authority for October 2012 is not in view of its wording, or its context, or its form, an act adversely affecting an official, the notification of which set the time-limit running for lodging a complaint.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 September 2014 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM (BIG BINGO)

(Case T-663/14)

(2014/C 395/70)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: M.D. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2014 in Case R 755/2014-1;

— approve for registration the Community trade mark application No 12 120 325‘BIG BINGO’ in Classes 9, 28 and 41;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark applied for: The figurative mark with the word elements ‘BIG BINGO’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 12 120 325

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the mark applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the findings of the Commission’s audit were erroneous. The applicant claims in that regard that findings of the Commission’s audit are contested based upon a number of manifest errors, procedural and substantive. The applicant also claims that the Commission has not only failed to review the very orders it has issued, the Commission has also blatantly ignored and failed to consider any and all issues that were raised by ADR Center.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/55

Action brought on 22 September 2014 — Puma v OHIM — Sinda Poland (Representation of an imaginary animal)

(Case T-692/14)

2014/C 409/76

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sinda Poland Corporation Sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision issued on 14 September 2012 (Case R 2214/2013-5) on the grounds that Article 8(1)(b) CTMR was not correctly applied, which resulted in the incorrect finding that the conflicting trade marks were not visually and conceptually similar;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Sinda Poland Corporation Sp. z.o.o. to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Office.

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 representation of an imaginary animal for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 42 395

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The international registrations Nos 3 69 075 and 4 80 105 for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28, and the international registration No 5 93 987 for goods and services in all classes

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/45

Action brought on 31 July 2014 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and SNF v Commission

(Case T-573/14)

2014/C 409/66

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group (Brussels, Belgium) and SNF SAS (Andrézieux Bouthéon, France) (represented by: R. Cana and A. Patsa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— annul the contested act because it lays down an invariable concentration limit of 100 ppm for residual monomers;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicants seek the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision 2014/256/EU of 2 May 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for converted paper products (1).

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the EU Ecolabel Regulation (2) as the Commission has laid down an invariable concentration limit of 100 ppm for residual monomers under Section (e) of Criterion 1(B)(B3) of the annex to the contested decision. The applicants submit that the requirements laid down in the said section: — infringe Article 6(3) of and Annex I to the EU Ecolabel Regulation as they are not determined on a scientific basis; — infringe Article 6(1) of and Annex I to the EU Ecolabel Regulation as they do not take into account the latest strategic objectives of the EU in the environmental field; — infringe Article 6(3)(b) of the EU Ecolabel Regulation as their feasibility has not been considered by the Commission.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons and the principles of equality and proportionality as the contested decision: — contains no indication or explanation as to the requirements laid down in Section (e) of Criterion 1(B)(B3); — treats both different situations equally and equal situations differently without such discrimination being objectively justified; — is not necessary to attain the objectives that are pursued and less onerous measures exist.

3. Third plea in law, alleging breach of the Commission’s duty of good administration as it has not examined carefully and impartially all the relevant factors and circumstances when adopting the contested decision.

(1) OJ 2014 L 135, p. 24. Notified under document C(2014) 2774.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (OJ 2010 L 27, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 448/37

Action brought on 27 October 2014 — Hersill v OHIM — KCI Licensing (VACUP)

(Case T-741/14)

(2014/C 448/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hersill, SL (Móstoles, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: KCI Licensing, Inc. (San Antonio, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community trade mark application No 9 9 43 499

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2014 in Case R 1520/2013-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present appeal as well founded and annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should they appear as parties in the present process, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 22(3) of Regulation No 2868/95;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/44

Action brought on 3 October 2014 — Holistic Innovation Institute v REA

(Case T-706/14)

2014/C 421/62

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Muñiz García, lawyer)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision excluding the applicant from the INACHUS and ZONeSEC projects;

— compensate the applicant and order the defendant to pay the amount of EUR 7 81 250, corresponding to the two projects from which it has been excluded, together with interest at the statutory rate from when the payments were to accrue; and

— compensate the applicant and order the defendant to pay the amount determined by the expert appointed by the General Court, for the additional harm that exclusion from the projects caused to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the decision of the Research Executive Agency of the European Commission of 24 July 2014, reference ARES (2014) 2461172, terminating negotiations and rejecting the participation of the applicant in the European projects INACHUS (607522) and ZONeSEC (607292) of the Call for Proposals FP7-SEC-2013-1 of the Seventh Framework Programme.

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

1. The decision is manifestly unfounded, containing a mere ostensible statement of reasons.

2. The independent evaluators reported favourably on projects in which the applicant company participated.

3. After those reports, the defendant changed the criteria as a retaliatory measure against the director of the applicant, who had previously brought proceedings against the European Commission in connection with a dispute relating to the company Rose Visión S.L.

4. The agents of the defendant put pressure on the other participants in the projects to exclude the applicant before the decision, in an attempt thereby to avoid having to take the contested decision.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection as regards (i) the reasons stated for the provisions, (ii) the lack of evidence for the reasons stated and (iii) the rights of defence and of property, given that the requirement to state reasons and the need to produce genuine evidence have not been observed, which has an impact on the other rights. The rights of the defence have, in particular, been infringed, since the Council, despite the appropriate request being made in good time, handed over the file concerning the restrictions — which was short and simple to assemble — very belatedly, thereby preventing the applicant from properly preparing its defence.