ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/50

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Australian Gold v OHIM — Effect Management & Holding (HOT)

(Case T-611/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark HOT - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of descriptiveness - Distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Cross-claim before the Board of Appeal - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 - Cross-claim before the General Court - Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991))

(2015/C 302/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Australian Gold LLC (Indianapolis, Indiana, United States) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Effect Management & Holding GmbH (Vöcklabruck, Austria) (represented by: H. Pernez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 1881/2012-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Australian Gold LLC and Effect Management & Holding GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 September 2013 (Case R 1881/2012-4) in so far as it failed to adjudicate on the application of Australian Gold LLC concerning ‘cleaning, polishing, degreasing and abrasive preparations’ in Class 3 and ‘sanitary preparations for medical purposes’ in Class 5, and in so far as it annulled and altered the decision of the Cancellation Division for ‘perfumes, essential oils, cosmetics, including shampoos, shower gels, body lotions, face creams’ in Class 3;

2. Dismisses the action brought by Effect Management & Holding GmbH before the Board of Appeal in respect of ‘perfumes, essential oils, cosmetics, including shampoos, shower gels, body lotions, face creams’;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

4. Rejects the request for alteration submitted by Effect Management & Holding;

5. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/41

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Reed Exhibitions v OHIM (INFOSECURITY)

(Case T-633/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark INFOSECURITY - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 389/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Reed Exhibitions Ltd (Richmond, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 1544/2012-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign INFOSECURITY as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Reed Exhibitions Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/29

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Novartis Europharm v Commission

(Case T-67/13) (1)

((Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation for the generic medicinal product Zoledronic acid Hospira - zoledronic acid - Regulatory data protection period for the reference medicinal products Zometa and Aclasta, containing the active substance zoledronic acid - Directive 2001/83/EC - Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Global marketing authorisation - Regulatory data protection period))

(2015/C 363/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Horsham, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hospira UK Ltd (Royal Leamington Spa, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by N. Stoate and H. Austin, Solicitors, and J. Stratford QC, and subsequently by N. Stoate and E. Vickers, Solicitors, and J. Stratford QC)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C (2012) 8605 final of 19 November 2012 granting a marketing authorisation in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the medicinal product for human use ‘Zoledronic acid Hospira — zoledronic acid’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Novartis Europharm Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and by Hospira UK Ltd.

(1) OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/33

Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Accorinti and Others v ECB

(Case T-79/13) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - ECB - National central banks - Restructuring of Greek public debt - Programme for purchasing securities - Securities exchange agreement for the sole benefit of central banks in the Eurosystem - Private sector involvement - Collective action clauses - Credit enhancement in the form of a buyback programme intended to support the quality of the securities as collateral - Private creditors - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Liability for a lawful legislative measure - Unusual and special damage))

(2015/C 398/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Accorinti (Nichelino, Italy) and 214 other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Sutti, R. Spelta and G. Sanna, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: initially S. Bening and P. Papapaschalis, then P. Senkovic and P. Papapaschalis, and finally P. Senkovic, acting as Agents, and by E. Castellani, B. Kaiser and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

Re:

Action for damages for the harm suffered by the applicants as a result of, in particular, the adoption by the ECB of Decision 2012/153/EU of 5 March 2012 on the eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic in the context of the Hellenic Republic’s debt exchange offer (OJ 2012 L 77, p. 19) and of other decisions of the European Central Bank taken in the context of the restructuring of Greek debt.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Mr Alessandro Accorinti and the other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/40

Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2015 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling)

(Case T-627/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Figurative mark Darjeeling - Earlier Community collective word and figurative marks DARJEELING - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 389/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France) (represented by: G. Marchais and P. Martini-Berthon, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 1387/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between The Tea Board and Delta Lingerie.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 September 2013 (Case R 1387/2012-2) as regards the goods in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘[r]etailing of women’s underwear and lingerie, perfumes, toilet water and cosmetic lotions, household and bath linen’ services in Class 35 of that agreement covered by the mark applied for;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/23

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Mustang v OHIM — Dubek (Mustang)

(Case T-606/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Mustang - Earlier national word and figurative marks MUSTANG - No risk of detriment to the reputation of the earlier marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009))

(2016/C 007/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Künzelsau, Germany) (represented by: initially S. Völker, then C. Roos and S. Speckmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Dubek Ltd (Petach Tikva, Israel) (represented by: C. Thomas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 September 2013 (Case R 416/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG and Dubek Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/25

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Calida v OHIM — Quanzhou Green Garments (dadida)

(Case T-597/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark dadida - Earlier Community word mark CALIDA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 414/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Calida Holding AG (Sursee, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kaase and H. Dirksmeier, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Quanzhou Green Garments Co. Ltd (Quanzhou, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2013 (Case R 1190/2012-4), relating to cancellation proceedings between Calida Holding AG and Quanzhou Green Garments Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Calida Holding AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/41

Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Abertis Telecom and Retevisión I v Commission

(Case T-541/13) (1)

((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas in Spain - Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - New aid - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 027/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Abertis Telecom, SA (Barcelona, Spain) and Retevisión I, SA (Barcelona) (represented by: initially L. Cases Pallarès, J. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García, A. Lamadrid de Pablo, M. Muñoz de Juan and M. Reverter Baquer, then L. Cases Pallarès, J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and M. Reverter Baquer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: SES Astra (Betzdorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. González Díaz, F. Salerno and V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/489/EU of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 [(C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/010, ex CP 163/2009)] implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas (other than Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 52).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Abertis Telecom, SA and Retevisión I, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by SES Astra.

(1) OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/33

Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-367/13) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Rural Development - Expenditure incurred by Poland - Article 33b of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 - Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Mixed financial correction - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 027/38)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (Represented by: B. Majczyna and K. Straś, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 123, p. 11), in so far as the Commission applies in that decision corrections amounting to EUR 8 292 783,94 and EUR 71 610 559,39 to expenditure declared by the Republic of Poland in respect of support for semi-subsistence farms.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/32

Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Sto v OHIM Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding (CRETEO)

(Case T-640/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CRETEO - Earlier national word marks StoCretec and STOCRETE - Relative ground for refusal - Distinctive character acquired through use - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 098/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sto SE & Co. KGaA, formerly Sto AG (Stühlingen, Germany (represented by: K. Kern and J. Sklepek, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Lochner and C. Thomas, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 September 2013 (Case R 905/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sto AG and Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sto SE & Co. KGaA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.
1)

Annuls the corrigendum, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 21 March 2013, to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/177/10 to constitute a reserve list from which to recruit administrators in the fields of European public administration, law, economics, audit and information and communication technology, and the corrigendum, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 21 March 2013, to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/178/10 and corrigendum to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/179/10 to constitute a reserve list from which to recruit administrators in the fields of, respectively, librarianship and information science and audiovisual, in so far as their nature and content have been identified in paragraphs 68 to 70 of the present judgment;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/18

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Portugal Telecom v Commission

(Case T-208/13) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Portuguese and Spanish telecommunications markets - Non-competition clause in relation to the Iberian market inserted into the agreement for the acquisition by Telefónica of the share held by Portugal Telecom in the Brazilian mobile operator Vivo - Statutory safeguard ‘to the extent permitted by law’ - Obligation to provide reasons - Infringement by object - Ancillary restriction - Potential competition - Infringement by effects - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Request for the hearing of witnesses))

(2016/C 287/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Mimoso Ruiz and R. Bordalo Junqueiro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, C. Giolito, C. Urraca Caviedes and T. Christoforou, and, subsequently, C. Giolito, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Marques Mendes, lawyer)

Subject matter

Application for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C (2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/39.839 — Telefónica/Portugal Telecom) and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside Article 2 of Commission Decision C (2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/39.839 — Telefónica/Portugal Telecom) in so far as it fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA at EUR 12 290 000, to the extent that that amount was fixed on the basis of the value of the sales taken into account by the European Commission;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders Portugal Telecom SGPS to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Portugal Telecom SGPS.

(1) OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Pappalardo and Others v Commission

(Case T-316/13) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Fisheries - Conservation of fisheries resources - Reconstitution of stocks of bluefin tuna - Emergency measures prohibiting fishing by purse seiners - Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))

(2016/C 211/53)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo (Cetara, Italy), Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop. (Cetara), Fedemar Srl (Cetara), Testa Giuseppe E C. Snc (Catane, Italy), Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl (Cetara), Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo EC (Pescara, Italy) and Valentino Pesca Sas di Camplone Arnaldo & C. (Pescara) (represented by: V. Cannizzaro and L. Caroli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for compensation in respect of damage allegedly suffered by the applicants following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe E C. Snc, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo EC and Valentino Pesca Sas di Camplone Arnaldo & C. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council

(Case T-351/13) (1)

((Dumping - Importation of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Direct concern - Individual concern - Admissibility - Determination of normal value - Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - ‘Lesser duty’ rule - Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1225/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 441/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China) and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG (Roding, Germany) (represented by: K. Neuhaus, H.-J. Freund and B. Ecker, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2013 of 22 April 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2013 L 112, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 383/10

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries and Ranbaxy (UK) v Commission

(Case T-460/13) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition by object - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreement concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking - Fines - Legal certainty - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Duration of the Commission’s investigation))

(2016/C 383/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd, formerly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd (Vadodara, India) and Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Vidal, A. Penny, Solicitors, and B. Kennelly, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Vollrath, F. Castilla Contreras and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and by D. Bailey, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck) and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd and Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.