ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/34

Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Swatch v OHIM — L’atelier Wysiwyg (wysiwatch WhatYouSeeIsTheWatchYouGet)

(Case T-83/15)

(2015/C 127/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L’atelier Wysiwyg (Besançon, 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 ‘wysiwatch’ and ‘WhatYouSeeIsTheWatchYouGet’ — Application for registration No 11 041 597

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 in Case R 1873/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and L’atelier Wysiwyg to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/32

Appeal brought on 20 January 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 November 2014 in Case F-2/12, Hristov v Commission and EMA

(Case T-26/15 P)

(2015/C 118/40)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova)

Other parties to the proceedings: Emil Hristov, European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 13 November 2014 in Case F-2/12 Hristov v Commission and EMA,

— refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, for a ruling on the other pleas in support of the appeal,

— reserve the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law:

— the Civil Service Tribunal infringed EU law by attributing to the principle of good administration a scope which it does not have;

— in the alternative, the Civil Service Tribunal infringed the principle of proportionality by failing to determine, before making the annulment, whether the failure to observe the principle of good administration could have affected the contents of the contested decision;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed in its duty to give reasons when it refused to grant access to the requested documents, relying upon a general presumption of applicability of the protection of the purposes of inspections, investigations and audits.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/58

Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)

(Case T-86/15)

(2015/C 138/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Gaydon, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community trade mark indicated as ‘other’ representing a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle — Application for registration No 1 2 2 18 418

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2014 in Case R 1795/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for prima facie lacked distinctive character for the goods and services in question;

— allow the community trade mark application No. 1 2 2 18 418 to proceed to publication; and

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/32

Action brought on 23 March 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM

(SOCIAL.COM)

(Case T-134/15)

(2015/C 171/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, M. Maier, lawyers)

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 ‘SOCIAL.COM’ — Application for registration No 12 245 411

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2015 in Case R 1752/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjuction with Article 7 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

annul the following acts, to the extent that the Court finds that the acts produce legal effects and to the extent that these acts refuse the eligibility of claims made by the applicant under the Grant Agreement with the reference number project 216837 ATRACO, concluded within the context of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration services (2007-2013), and purport to impose on the applicant an obligation to repay funds received and to pay liquidated damages: — Commission decision contained in the letter of 11 December 2014 with reference number ARES (2014) 4162021; — Commission decision contained in the debit note of 23 October 2012 with the reference number ARES (2012) 1248814; — Commission decision contained in the letter of 7 December 2012 without a reference number;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/17

Action brought on 24 March 2015 — Aurora v CPVO — SES-VanderHave (M 02205)

(Case T-140/15)

(2015/C 190/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Aurora Srl (Finale Emilia, Italy) (represented by: L. Buchman, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SES-VanderHave NV/SA (Tienen, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community plant variety right at issue: Community Plant Variety Right No EU 15118, variety denomination M 02205

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 26 November 2014 in Case A10/2013

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare that CPVR No EU 15118 is null and void;

— order CPVO to pay the costs, including the cost of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 2100/94;

— Misinterpretation of Article 87(4) of Regulation No 2100/94;

— Infringement of the principle of legal certainty insofar as the conditions of the granted CPVR were retrospectively changed;

— Infringement, to a certain extent, of the principle of legitimate expectation;
—

The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission’s statement that the trade statistics for the first 11 months of 2014 show a 5 % increase in exports compared to the same period in 2013 is contradicted by the right-hand column of the table found on page 19 of the same report on the market situation for poultrymeat of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets of 22 January 2015, cited by the Commission, which showed that in the first 11 months of 2013, European Union exports of poultrymeat came to EUR 1 93 6 0 00 000, while in the first 11 months of 2014 those exports came to only EUR 1 88 6 8 38 000, amounting to a 2,5 % decline and not a 5 % increase, and that the Commission also erred in its assessment of prices, which it defined as ‘stable’, even though they represent a severe decrease of approximately 8 %, as page 9 of the report shows and therefore constitutes a manifest error of assessment and a breach of Article 219(1) and Article 221 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/45

Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO)

(Case T-202/15)

(2015/C 198/62)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, 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 figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WORLD OF BINGO’ — Application for registration No 12 669 396

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 in Case R 1899/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/17

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-139/15)

(2015/C 190/20)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and A. Pálfy, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Set aside in part Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 53 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure of the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as, with regard to Hungary, it excludes from European Union financing EUR 1 1 7 09 400 in relation to the sugar restructuring fund.

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant rejects the requirement which the Commission considers to apply, but which does not appear expressly in the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Joined Cases C-187/12 and C-189/12 SFIR and Others, according to which the time of presentation of the aid application to which the exclusion contained in the contested decision refers is important for the purposes of examining the applicability of the exceptions contained in the judgment. That conclusion, according to the applicant, is contrary to the logic of the restructuring programme and, moreover, completely overlooks the seasonal nature of sugar production and calls into question the practical applicability of the exceptions.

Furthermore, the applicant considers that, although the Commission’s legal interpretation may be correct, as regards the legislation on restructuring aid — in particular the classification of silos — difficulties of interpretation have arisen, so that, given the uncertainty, the Commission acted in accordance with the law in reducing the amount excluded from European Union financing, having regard to the difficulties of interpretation inherent in the EU legislation, or completely disregarding the exclusion.
2.

Second plea in law: Infringement of fundamental rights In the context of this plea in law, the applicant invokes infringement of the right to property and infringement of the freedom to conduct a business. He also complains that the restrictive measures imposed are disproportionate. Lastly, he submits that there has been infringement of his rights of the defence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/40

Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Meda (Zymara)

(Case T-214/15)

(2015/C 205/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Zymara’ — Application for registration No 9 982 745

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 February 2015 in Case R 550/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal has misinterpreted the goods which are ‘pharmaceutical preparations, namely preparations for the treatment of cancer’;

— The Board of Appeal has incorrectly based its decision on spelling rules which are not existing;

— The Board of Appeal has ignored arguments put forward with respect to the comparison of signs and, therefore, incorrectly held that the signs are phonetically similar only to a low degree;
—

annul Commission Notice SA.38271 of 28 October 2014 on State Aid SA.2014/N 38271, linked to the Plan for Investment in Motorways in France, published on 20 February 2015 in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).
—

order the Parliament to pay compensation to the applicants for the loss of the opportunity to be ranked in first place for Lot 3 in the ITS14 framework agreement, which the applicants evaluate ex aequo et bono at one million, five hundred thousand euros (EUR 1 5 00 000), with interest from the date of that decision or such other amount as the Court deems appropriate, and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/30

Action brought on 8 April 2015 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission

(Case T-178/15)

(2015/C 245/36)

Language of the case: Germany

Parties

Applicants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH (Penig, Germany) and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (Frohburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Wagner, Lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision of 2 March 2015;

— allow the claimants’ opposition of 23 December 2014 in proceedings AT-TSG-0007-01035.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants claim that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law and should therefore be annulled. Under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1), the applicants, as persons lodging a notice of opposition, had a three-month period in which they were required to lodge a notice of opposition with the national authorities if they wished to lodge an opposition to an application for a traditional speciality guaranteed. They state that the publication at issue (OJ 2014 C 340, p. 6) was effected on 30 September 2014 and that on 23 December 2014 the opposition was lodged with the national authorities. The applicants allege that they are not responsible for any subsequent inobservance of a time-limit. They add that they alone cannot influence the timeous action of the competent authority with regard to the forwarding of oppositions to the Commission and that the contested decision did not have regard to the fact that the notice of opposition was lodged in time. That decision had regard only to the date at which the notice was received by the European Commission.

In addition, it is claimed that Article 51 of Regulation No 1151/2012 does not lay down a time-limit for the forwarding of the notice of opposition through a national authority. It is therefore only the applicants’ submission of the notice of opposition to the national authorities which is relevant.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/36

Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona v Commission

(Case T-253/15)

(2015/C 245/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. de Juan Casadevall, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

— annul the contested decision;

— in the alternative, if the main claim is rejected, annul the contested decision insofar as it does not limit the recovery order to indirect acquisitions made after 21 December 2007, and does not recognise the right to full application of tax concessions during the entire period provided for in Article 12.5 of the Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004 of 5 March approving the Texto Refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades (the consolidated text of the Spanish Company Tax Act), and

— order the European Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in these proceedings is the same as that in Cases T-12/15, Banco de Santander and Santusa v Commission, and T-252/15 Ferrovial SA and others v Commission.

The pleas and main arguments relied on are similar to those already raised in those cases.

It is claimed in particular that there was an error in law in the application of the selectivity criterion, that there was a misuse of powers and an infringement of the principles of equality and legitimate expectations.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest errors of assessment — The Commission has, in setting and applying the criteria to determine the economic nature of the insurance scheme, committed errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in finding that SZP/VZP does not qualify as an undertaking and failed to provide adequate reasoning.
—

Exceeding by the Commission of the bounds of its discretion within the meaning of the case-law emphasising the obligations of the institution exercising discretion to explain both why certain items of evidence and facts are taken into consideration and why others are rejected.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that REA bases its position on an erroneous interpretation of the ‘C7’ and ‘CEREBNET’ Grant agreements. This first plea in law is divided in three limbs: Restricting the possibility of training to the premises of the beneficiary would be contrary to the objectives of the Seventh Framework Programme, the People Programme, the 2008 PWP and the European Charter for researchers (First Limb); it can be inferred from the provisions of the Grant agreements and the Guide for applicants that the obligation for the beneficiaries to provide training can also be fulfilled outside their premises (Second Limb); and no provision(s) of the Grant agreements or any other instrument applicable state(s) that the training should be provided exclusively on the premises of the beneficiary (Third Limb).
Case T-282/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads)

Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads)

(Case T-282/15)

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Design at issue: Community design (Tyre treads) — Community design No 4 700-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 1288/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant the application for restitutio in integrum made by Pirelli Tyre SpA in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs, by declaring that the payment of the renewal fee relating to the second five-year period by way of a withdrawal from current account No 000069 under the name of Bugnion SpA is lawful and that, therefore, the right to the design at issue is still valid;

— order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in the present proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/44

Action brought on 24 June 2015 — Keil v OHIM — Naturafit Diätetische Lebensmittelproduktions (BasenCitrate)

(Case T-330/15)

(2015/C 279/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Rudolf Keil (Grevenbroich, Germany) (represented by: J. Sachs, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Naturafit Diätetische Lebensmittelproduktions GmbH (Röttenbach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘BasenCitrate’ — Community trade mark No 11 120 284

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2015 in Case R 1541/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs, including those which were incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

The applicant submits on this point that there was a breach of the right to property guaranteed him by Article 17(1) of the Charter and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, consisting in the fact that, as a result of the breach of the right to good administration, the contested acts limiting the applicant’s right to property were adopted with no legal grounds and contrary to the conditions set out in Article 52(1) of the Charter.