ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/23

Action brought on 2 April 2015 — Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise v OHIM — Freistaat Bayern (NEUSCHWANSTEIN)

(Case T-167/15)

(2015/C 178/23)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicants: Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise e.V. (Veitsbronn, Deutschland) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Appeal Board: Freistaat Bayern (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘NEUSCHWANSTEIN’

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 22 January 2015 in Case R 28/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the sign ‘NEUSCHWANSTEIN’ — Community trade mark No 10 144 392 — invalid;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/40

Action brought on 2 April 2015 — Gramberg v OHIM — Mahdavi Sabet (Protective case for a mobile telephone)

(Case T-166/15)

(2015/C 198/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Claus Gramberg (Essen, Germany) (represented by: S. Kettler, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sorouch Mahdavi Sabet (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the design at issue: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 1 968 496-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 January 2015 in Case R 460/2013-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and declare Community design No 1 968 496-0002 invalid; in the alternative,

— annul the contested decision and remit the case to the Board of Appeal for a new decision on the invalidity of Community design No 1 968 496-0002;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of 5(1)(b) Regulation No 6/2002;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/25

Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Estonia v Commission

(Case T-157/15)

(2015/C 190/29)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: Kristi Kraavi-Käerdi, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (C(2015) 53 final) (1) in so far as it concerns the Republic of Estonia in the amount of EUR 6 91 746,53;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission Implementing Decision of 16 January 2015 (C(2015) 53 final) in so far as it concerns the Republic of Estonia in the amount of EUR 6 91 746,53 for the years 2009 to 2011.

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

By the first plea, the applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled because the Commission wrongly ascertained and assessed the circumstances which were the basis of the decision and applied EU law incorrectly, leading to the false conclusion that Estonia had endangered EU funds.

According to the second plea, the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and incorrectly applied Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (2), in that the contested decision imposed a flat-rate financial correction of 2 % on Estonia.

According to the third plea, the Commission breached the principle of good administration, as it did not carefully assess and take into account all the evidence put forward by the applicant.

According to the fourth plea, the Commission breached the principle of legal certainty, as it took the view that the GAEC landscape elements standard should also have been applied and its application continually monitored in 2009.

(1) OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33.

(2) Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/36

Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Aguirre and Company v OHIM — Puma (Representation of a sports shoe)

(Case T-205/15)

(2015/C 205/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Aguirre and Company, SA. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero and A. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark representing a sports shoe —Community trade mark No 1050520-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2015 in Case R 696/2013-3

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— alter the contested decision so as to find that the ground of invalidity laid down in Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation No 6/2002 found by the Board of Appeal is not met in this case;

— or, alternatively, annul the contested decision;

— and, in any event, order OHIM to pay the costs and the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— infringement of an essential procedural requirement in that the contested decision contained inconsistent statements with the result that it is insufficiently reasoned.

— infringement of Article 25(1)(e) Regulation No 6/2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/48

Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament

(Case T-259/15)

(2015/C 236/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: SA Close (Harzé-Aywaille, Belgium) and Cegelec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-M. Rikkers and J.-L. Teheux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision taken on an unknown date by the European Parliament to award the public works contract concerning the ‘extension and upgrading project for the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg’ Lot 73 (energy centre), reference INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-A04, to the Association Momentanée ENERGIE-KAD (composed of the companies Mersch et Schmitz Production Sàrl and Energolux S.A.) and, accordingly, not to award the contract to the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons and of the principle of transparency, in so far as a reading of the grounds for the rejection of the applicants’ bid and the extracts from the decision awarding the contract to the Association Momentanée ENERGIE-KAD does not enable it to be ascertained whether those tenderers satisfied the requirements of qualitative selection laid down in the contract documents.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

The applicants submit that the European Parliament committed a manifest error of assessment in awarding the contract in question to the Association Momentanée ENERGIE-KAD and that the selection criteria were not applied in accordance with the tender specifications and in compliance with the principles of transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination required under Article 102 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1).

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 228/21

Action brought on 4 May 2015 — QuaMa Quality Management v OHIM — Microchip Technology (medialbo)

(Case T-225/15)

(2015/C 228/26)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by: C. Russ, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Microchip Technology, Inc. (Chandler, United States of America)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘medialbo’ — Application No 11 454 766

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 February 2015 in Joined Cases R 1809/2014-4 and R 1680/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/39

Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Spirig Pharma v OHIM (Daylong)

(Case T-261/15)

(2015/C 245/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Spirig Pharma (Egerkingen, Switzerland) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: figurative mark containing the word element ‘Daylong’ — Application for registration No 12 537 627

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2015 in Case R 2455/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the fourth Board of Appeal of the Office.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Article 75 of the same regulation;
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power. The applicant claims that, in so far as the measures adopted by the Council have no effect on the Syrian regime and in so far as applicant always complied with the sanctions imposed by the international community and always remained independent of the incumbent regime, there is reason to believe that the contested measures were adopted for reasons other than those indicated in those measures (market exclusion — favouring other players).
2.

Second plea, submitted in the alternative, alleging infringement of the freedom to provide services and the underlying principles of equal treatment and proportionality, in so far as the requirement to hold an authorisation pursuant to the Law of 10 April 1990 made it excessively difficult, or even impossible, for a company which provides a service that is not subject to that law to participate in the contract award procedure.
—

rule — in the event that it does not share the view, taken by the applicant, that the second paragraph of Article 5 of 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 cannot be construed as authorising the European Commission to adopt a binding decision on a request for access to documents, submitted by a natural or legal person to an authority of a Member State, which has been forwarded by that State to the Commission — that, by virtue of Article 277 TFEU, the second paragraph of Article 5 of that regulation cannot be applied in the present case on the ground that it is invalid;
Case T-344/15: Action brought on 1st July 2015 — French Republic v European Commission

Action brought on 1st July 2015 — French Republic v European Commission

(Case T-344/15)

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and F. Fize, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the court to:

— annul the decision of the European Commission GESTDEM 2014/6046 of 21 April 2015 concerning the confirmatory application for access pursuant to 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;

— order the Commission to pay 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 infringement of Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 ( 1 ), which provides that a Member State may request an institution not to disclose a document originating from that Member State without its prior agreement.

2. Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging infringement of the obligation to give reasons concerning the non-application of the exception provided at the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

3. Third plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging infringement of the second and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The applicant contends that the Commission could have refused access to the documents sent by the French authorities in accordance with the procedure provided in Directive 98/34/EC ( 2 ), in so far as that procedure would constitute an investigation within the meaning of the article cited above.

( 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 ) Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).
Case T-301/15: Action brought on 8 June 2015 — Jochen Schweizer v OHIM (Du bist, was du erlebst.)

Action brought on 8 June 2015 — Jochen Schweizer v OHIM (Du bist, was du erlebst.)

(Case T-301/15)

Parties

Applicant: Jochen Schweizer GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. González Hähnlein, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Du bist, was du erlebst.’ — Application No 13 250 865

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 April 2015 in Case R 3114/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/37

Action brought on 26 May 2015 — ANKO AE v Research Executive Agency (REA)

(Case T-270/15)

(2015/C 279/46)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare that the suspension of payment which the Research Executive Agency (REA) applied with respect to the sum which it continues to owe to the applicant as its contribution to the ESS project is in breach of its contractual obligations and, consequently, ΑΝΚΟ should be paid the remaining part of its contribution, the sum of EUR 1 25 253,82, with legal interest, and

— order the REA to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

With this action the applicant claims that the General Court of the European Union should, under Article 272 TFEU, declare that the suspension of payment which the Research Executive Agency applied with respect to the sum which it continues to owe to the applicant as its contribution to the ESS project in the context of the FP7 programme is in breach of its contractual obligations and, consequently, that that sum should be paid to ΑΝΚΟ, with interest from the date of lodging this action.

In particular, ΑΝΚΟ maintains that it fully and properly performed its contractual obligations. In contrast, the Research Executive Agency (REA) suspended its payments to ΑΝΚΟ, in breach of Section ΙΙ.5 (3)(d) of Annex ΙΙ to the principal agreement for the ESS project. For that reason, the Research Executive Agency (REA) continues to owe to the applicant with respect to the ESS project the sum payment of which was unlawfully suspended, namely EUR 1 25 253,82.

In particular, ΑΝΚΟ maintains that the suspension of payments by the Research Executive Agency (REA) to it with respect to the ESS project is contrary to the ESS project agreement and to EU law for the following reasons:

— First, the Research Executive Agency (REA) unlawfully suspended payments to ΑΝΚΟ, since none of the five conditions set out in Section ΙΙ.5 (3)(d) of Annex ΙΙ to the principal agreement applies.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/41

Action brought on 22 June 2015 — Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató v OHIM — Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató (Choco Love)

(Case T-325/15)

(2015/C 279/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. László, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft (Budapest, Hungary)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Choco love’ — Community trade mark application No 11 496 916

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2015 in Case R 1369/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the application, alter the contested decision by accepting the opposition and reject the Community trade mark application ‘Choco love’; or in the alternative:

— annul the contested decision and remit the case to OHIM for reexamination;

— order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/67

Action brought on 17 July 2015 — KPN v Commission

(Case T-394/15)

(2015/C 302/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KPN BV (Den Haag, Netherlands) (represented by: J. de Pree and C. van der Hoeven, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission decision C (2014) 7241 final of 10 October 2014 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA agreement (Case M.7000 — Liberty Global/Ziggo), and

— order the Commission to pay 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 a breach of Article 2 and Article 8 of the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) in that the Commission committed a manifest error in the assessment of the vertical effects of the concentration on the market for Premium Pay TV sports channels.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 296 TFEU in that the Commission failed to state its reasons for not assessing the possible vertical anti-competitive effects on the market for Premium Pay TV sports channels.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2 and Article 8 of the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in the Decision with respect to the role and influence of Mr Malone in other undertakings active on the same markets.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/80

Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Puig France (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)

(Case T-358/15)

(2015/C 294/96)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Arrom Conseil (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp and J. Blanchard, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puig France SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Roméo has a gun by Romano Ricci’ — Community trade mark application No 11 193 604

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2015 in Case R 1020/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in part;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
2.

In support of the action for annulment of the SATCEN implied refusal of 5 July 2013 to render assistance pursuant to Article 2.6 of the SATCEN Staff Regulations, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. — First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to provide assistance pursuant to Article 2.6 of the SATCEN Staff Regulations and the applicant’s right under Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘EU Charter’). — Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the applicant’s right under Article 31 of the EU Charter.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/33

Action brought on 10 July 2015 — Hernández Zamora v OHIM — Rosen Tantau (Paloma)

(Case T-369/15)

(2015/C 320/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hernández Zamora, SA (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rosen Tantau KG (Uetersen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Paloma’ — Application for registration No 11 638 971

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 April 2015 in Case R 1697/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the party or parties opposing the application to pay the costs.

Plea in law