ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/25

Action brought on 6 June 2012 — Argo Group International v OHIM — Arisa Assurances (ARIS)

(Case T-247/12)

2012/C 243/45

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Argo Group International Holdings Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda) (represented by: R. Hoy, S. Levine, and N. Edbrooke, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arisa Assurances SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Form of order sought

— Annul or alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 March 2012 in case R 193/2011-2, so that the applicant’s mark is registered;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in colour ‘ARIS’, for goods and services in class 36 — Community trade mark application No 7390404

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 307470 of the figurative mark in colours ‘ARISA ASSURANCES S.A.’ for goods and services in class 36

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant submits that OHIM and the Board erred as a matter of law in concluding that the marks are legally similar and in concluding ipso facto that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/25

Action brought on 27 June 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Sohawon (FREE YOUR STYLE.)

(Case T-282/12)

2012/C 258/46

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela, J. Rivas Zurdo and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nadia Mariam Sohawon (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 17 April 2012 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case R 1825/2010-4, and find that, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, the action brought by the opposing party before OHIM should have been upheld for the following services in Class 35: retail services, wholesale services, mailing services and online retail services related to clothing, footwear and headgear, and the decision of the Opposition Division to fully grant Community trade mark No 7 396 468‘FREE YOUR STYLE’ (mixed) should have been annulled;

— order the party or parties which oppose this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Nadia Mariam Sohawon

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘FREE YOUR STYLE.’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 35 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 7 396 468

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and Spanish word mark ‘FREE STYLE’ for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
—

that the contested Council measures infringe rights of the defence and the right to a fair hearing in that they do not provide the applicants with the possibility to effectively exercise their rights, in particular the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicants’ right to effective judicial remedy has also been infringed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 273/21

Action brought on 13 July 2012 — Tubes Radiatori v OHIM — Antrax It (Radiators for heating)

(Case T-315/12)

2012/C 273/35

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tubes Radiatori Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2012 in Case R 953/2011-3 and, thereby, declare that Community design No 000 169 370-0002 owned by TUBES RADIATORI Srl is valid, in so far as it is new and has individual character;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the Eurpopean Communities of 2 May 1991.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Radiators for heating — Community design No 169 370-0002

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Antrax It Srl

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Breach of Articles 4 and 9 of the Regulation on Community designs (CDR), in particular the ground for invalidity referred to in Article 25(1)(b) CDR, on the basis of lack of individual character for the purpose of Article 6(1)(b) CDR

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community design invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Breach of Articles 4, 5 and 6 of Regulation No 6/2002
2.

Second plea in law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU owing to the erroneous finding of an economic advantage on the basis of an erroneous assessment of the ‘Altmark criteria’, according to which compensation for the discharge of public service obligations does not result in any ‘favouring’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The Commission made errors in the assessment of each of the four Altmark criteria relevant to the outcome of the case. In particular, with regard to the third Altmark criterion, the Commission did not confine itself to the issue requiring determination: whether compensation exceeds what is necessary to cover the costs incurred in discharging public service obligations. Instead, the Commission unlawfully examines whether the size of the reserve capacity to cope with epidemics that is provided by the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung is incommensurate with the epidemic scenarios considered possible, which it affirms, notwithstanding experts’ reports to the contrary.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/11

Action brought on 31 July 2012 — Globosat Programadora v OHIM — Sport TV Portugal (SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL)

(Case T-348/12)

2012/C 311/14

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Globosat Programadora Ltda (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (represented by: S. Micallef, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sport TV Portugal, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

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 23 May 2012 in case R 2079/2010-4;

— Annul all costs orders made against the applicant by the Office, and order the later to bear the costs of 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 ‘SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL’, for services in classes 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 6915094

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese trade mark registration No 329507 of the figurative mark ‘SPORTV’, for services in classes 38 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Infringement of Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/27

Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Rocket Dog Brands v OHIM — Julius-K9 (K9 PRODUCTS)

(Case T-338/12)

2012/C 295/49

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Rocket Dog Brands LLC (Hayward, United States) (represented by: J. Reid, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Julius-K9 bt (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

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 21 May 2012 (R 1961/2011-4) insofar as it rejects the action in relation to all goods in class 25, and the following goods in class 18 namely goods made of these materials and not included in other classes; wallets, purses; purses, not of precious metal; and

— Order the proprietor to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘K9 PRODUCTS’ in black and white, for among others goods in classes 18 and 25 — Community trade mark registration No 5966031

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

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Community trade mark registration No 3933256 of the figurative mark ‘K9’ in black and white, for goods in class 25

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community trade mark partially invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision to the extent it declared the CTM invalid and rejected the cancellation request in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/12

Action brought on 10 August 2012 — Katjes Fassin v OHIM (Yoghurt-Gums)

(Case T-366/12)

2012/C 319/22

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany) (represented by T. Schmitz, 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 11 June 2012 in Case R 523/2012-4 and amend it in such a way that the appeal is dismissed in its entirety;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘Yoghurt-Gums’ for goods in Classes 6, 24 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 9 455 197

Decision of the Examiner: partial rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/11

Action brought on 6 August 2012 — Premiere Polish v OHIM — Donau Kanol (ECOFORCE)

(Case T-361/12)

2012/C 319/21

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Premiere Polish Co., Ltd (Cheltenham, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Jones and M. Carter, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Donau Kanol GmbH & Co KG (Ried im Traunkreis, Austria)

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 8 June 2012 in case R 851/2011-4;

— Allow the applicant’s Community trade mark application No 8777005 in its entirety or in the alternative, the proceedings be remitted to the Board of Appeal; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ECOFORCE’ for goods in class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8777005

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 7243173 of the figurative mark ‘ECO FORTE’ for goods in classes 1, 3 and 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/30

Action brought on 30 August 2012 — Elite Licensing v OHIM — Aguas De Mondariz Fuente del Val (elite BY MONDARIZ)

(Case T-386/12)

2012/C 355/64

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Elite Licensing Company SA (Fribourg, Suisse) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aguas De Mondariz Fuente del Val, SL (Mondariz, Spain)

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 6 June 2012 in case R 9/2011-5; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the 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 ‘elite BY MONDARIZ’, for goods and services in classes 32, 38 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 6957872

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition:: Community trade mark registration No 4995114 for the word mark ‘ELITE MODEL LOOK’, for goods and services in classes 8, 9, 11, 21 and 38; Community trade mark application No 5765185 for the figurative mark ‘elite’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 32, 35, 38, 41, 43 and 44; International trade mark registration No 949195 for the figurative mark ‘elite’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 32, 35, 38, 41, 43 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Rules 48(2), 49(1) and 96 (1) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/33

Action brought on 14 September 2012 — Ubee Interactive v OHIM — Augere Holdings (Netherlands) (Ubee Interactive)

(Case T-407/12)

2012/C 355/69

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ubee Interactive Corp. (Jhubei City, Taiwan) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Augere Holdings (Netherlands) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

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 12 July 2012 in case R 1849/2011-2; and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Ubee Interactive’, for goods and services in classes 9 and 38 — Community trade mark application No 7397326

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 7130248 of the word mark ‘QUBEE’, for goods and services in classes 9, 37, 38 and 42; Community trade mark No 7224603 of the figurative mark ‘QUBEE’, for goods and services in classes 9, 37, 38 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld 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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/39

Action brought on 28 September 2012 — Steiff v OHIM (Fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy)

(Case T-434/12)

2012/C 366/79

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Margarete Steiff GmbH (Giengen an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by D. Fissl, 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 19 July 2012 in Case No R 1692/2011-1;

— Annul OHIM’s rejection of Community trade mark application No 9 439 654;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the positional mark with which protection is claimed for a rectangular, elongated fabric tag fastened to the middle section of the ear of a soft toy by means of a gleaming or matt, round metal button for goods in Class 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 439 654

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 373/7

Action brought on 25 September 2012 — LVM v Commission

(Case T-419/12)

2012/C 373/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster a. G. (Münster, Germany) (represented by: A. Birnstiel, H. Heinrich and J.-O. Schrotz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission’s decision of 17 July 2012 by which a request by the applicant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) for access to certain documents in a cartel proceeding (COMP/39.125 — Carglass) was refused;

— order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging failure to assess the documents individually identified in the application — In the context of the first plea, the applicant submits that the decision is not based on a specific and individual assessment of each document. In the applicant’s view, the contested decision is based on the legally erroneous premiss that there is a general presumption that the circumstances of an exception apply in the present case.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons — The applicant submits that, in its decision, the Commission justified the comprehensive rejection of the applicant’s request on the basis of general considerations only, and thus inadequately. The applicant regards this as a breach of the obligation to state reasons and thus as a breach of essential procedural requirements.

3. Third plea in law, alleging errors of law in the interpretation and application of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — By the third plea the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in its interpretation and application of the standard exceptions provided for in the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In the applicant’s view, the Commission disregards the relationship between rule and exception and proceeds on the basis of far too broad an understanding of the ‘protection of investigations’ and of the concept of ‘commercial interests’.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to take account of the private law enforcement of cartel law as a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — By the fourth plea, the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly denied that there was an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents requested. According to the applicant, the Commission should, particularly when weighing up the various interests, have taken account of the fact that the private law enforcement of cartel law also constitutes a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

(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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/19

Action brought on 15 October 2012 — Stromberg Menswear v OHIM — Leketoy Stormberg Inter (STORMBERG)

(Case T-451/12)

2013/C 63/39

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Stromberg Menswear Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Tsoutsanis, lawyer, and C. Tulley, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leketoy Stormberg Inter AS (Kristiansand S, Norway)

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 August 2012 in case R 389/2012-4;

— Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2012 in case R 389/2012-4 and grant the request for re-establishment of rights, and i) primarily, annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 11 January 2011 to terminate the revocation proceedings under No 4054 C and order the Cancellation Division to re-open the revocation proceedings under No 4054 C and invite Stromberg Menswear to submit observations to continue the revocation proceedings, or, ii) alternatively, allow Stromberg Menswear to appeal the decision of the Cancellation Division of 11 January 2011 to close the revocation proceedings and refer the appeal back to the Board of Appeal; and

— Order OHIM to pay any and all costs and legal fees incurred by Stromberg Menswear in connection with the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘STORMBERG’, for goods and services in class 25 — Community trade mark registration No 2557155

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

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the cancellation proceedings closed following a surrender of the contested CTM by its proprietor

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the request for restitution in integrum into the time limit for filing the notice of appeal and declared that the appeal was deemed not having been filed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 81 of Council Regulation No 207/2009;