ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/71

Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Hmicho/Conseil

(Case T-275/15)

(2015/C 294/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Samir Hmicho (Poole, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Davies, Solicitor, and T. Eicke, QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), and/or Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 41), and/or Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/784 of 19 May 2015, implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 124, p. 13), in so far as they relate to the Applicant;

— annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 124, p. 1), and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/780 of 19 May 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 10), in so far as they relate to the Applicant;

— annul the decision of the Council, contained in its letter of 20 May 2015, reference SGS15/06024, confirming the designation of the Applicant and ‘altering the information concerning [the Applicant] as set out in Council Implementing Decision and Regulation’;

— order the European Union to compensate the Applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that there is an absence of legal basis for restrictive measures against him and/or a manifest error of assessment on the basis that there is no rational connection between him and the individuals sought to be targeted by the restrictive measures adopted by the Union namely those who are benefiting from or supporting Syrian regime.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council Decisions 2013/255/CFSP, 2015/383 and 2015/784, the Council Regulations No 36/2012, No 2015/375 and no 2015/780, and/or the Decision dated 20 may 2015 amount to a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the European Convention of Human Rights including the applicant’s right to human dignity, right to good administration, including the right of defence, the duty to give reasons and the presumption of innocence, right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, right to respect for his private and family life, freedom to conduct a business, and his right to property.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/77

Action brought on 25 June 2015 — Windrush Aka v OHIM — Dammers (The Specials)

(Case T-336/15)

(2015/C 294/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Windrush Aka LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister and S. Britton, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jerry Dammers (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘The Specials’ — Community trade mark No 3 725 082

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for revocation

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2015 in Case R 1412/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/56

Action brought on 20 July 2015 — Morgan & Morgan v OHIM — Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Morgan & Morgan)

(Case T-399/15)

(2015/C 311/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Morgan & Morgan International Insurance Brokers S.r.l. (Conegliano, Italy) (represented by: F. Gatti and F. Caricato, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Ciudad de Panamá, Panama)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Morgan & Morgan’ — Application for registration No 11 596 087

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2015 in Case R 1657/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— recognize and declare that the recourse presented by the Appellant is admissible and well founded;

— reform the contested decision;

— give way to a definitive registration of the Community Trademark no. 11 596 087 in the name of Morgan & Morgan International Insurance Brokers s.r.l. in class 36;

— order OHIM to pay fees and cost of the three proceedings.

Plea in law
—

order the defendants and any interveners to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses for this procedure in an amount to be determined equitably by the Court.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/44

Action brought on 30 July 2015 — Satkirit Holdings v OHIM — Advanced Mailing Solutions (luvoworld)

(Case T-450/15)

(2015/C 320/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Satkirit Holdings Ltd (Douglas, Isle of Man) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, QC)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Advanced Mailing Solutions Ltd (East Kilbride, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘luvoworld’ — Application for registration No 11 244 332

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2015 in Case R 1480/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss AMS’s Opposition;

— order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 13(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 of 30th November 2009 (Codified Version) on Protection Against Dumped Imports from Countries not Members of the European Community caused by manifest error of assessment in law and fact on the Commission’s part in relation to the existence of assembly operations on the part of the applicant and breach of the duty of care. — The applicant puts forward that the Commission was required to use the actual information and data provided by the applicant as the basis for assessing its situation. According to the applicant, the use of the third-party benchmarks for this purpose is therefore not permitted where a reasonable and justifiable explanation is provided for actual data. — The applicant further puts forward that the Commission made a further infringement of the obligation to correctly appraise the production costs of the applicant when it reclassified the parts used to the make the applicant’s first sale to the European Union market as originating in China, though they originated in Vietnam. In doing so, the Commission allegedly also breached its duty of care. — Also, so the applicant claims, the Commission miscalculated the correct energy and rental costs by incorrectly using different factors in allocating these respective costs. The same miscalculation allegedly occurred when the Commission calculated that the company was operating at 13 % of its production capacity during the relevant period. — Finally, according to the applicant, the Commission declined to accept any depreciation costs for the fixed assets, though the applicant had furnished evidence that the company’s shareholder was reimbursed by the applicant.
—

By the third plea in law, the applicant claims that — in breach of the right to a hearing and the procedural safeguards under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) — the disputed decision goes far beyond clarification of the issues raised in the initiation decision. First, the contested decision concludes that it is inappropriate to measure the aid against the Guidelines, whereas the initiation decision emphasises that that is ‘the only legal basis for compatibility’. Secondly, the contested decision concludes that it is — exceptionally — appropriate for the aid to be measured against Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, even though there is nothing in the initiation decision that would indicate such a possibility. As a result the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to comment on those issues which, so far as the Commission was concerned, were ultimately decisive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/31

Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Automobile Club di Brescia v OHIM — Rebel Media (e-miglia)

(Case T-458/15)

(2015/C 328/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Automobile Club di Brescia (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica and F. Fischetti, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rebel Media Ltd (Wilmslow, United Kingdom)

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 ‘e-miglia’ — Application for registration No 9 782 673

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2015 in Case R 1990/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul only paragraphs 3 and 4 of the contested decision;

— confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 30 May 2014 concerning opposition No B 1 900 540 in its entirety, except for the part relating to compensation of expenses;

— order the other party to pay the costs, including the costs of all proceedings before OHIM.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant was not informed, despite requests for same, of particulars relating to the financial evaluation of the tenders.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/26

Action brought on 31 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Medicines Agency

(Case T-441/15)

(2015/C 328/24)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Αthens, Greece), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Βrussels, Βelgium) (represented by: I. Ambazis and M. Sfyri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Medicines Agency (ΕMA) which was notified to the applicants by means of an e-mail of 04/06/2015 from the IT Resource Manager, whereby the EMA rejected two of the candidates whom the applicants had proposed in relation to Request Form for Services No SC001 in the context of the ΕΜΑ/2012/10/ICT framework-agreement;·

— order the EMA to pay compensation to the applicants for the loss of opportunity to conclude individual Project Manager contracts under Request Form for Services No SC001, which the applicants estimate ex aequo et bono at eight thousand euros (EUR 8 000), with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment or such other sum as the General Court deems appropriate, and

— order the EMA to pay all the costs of the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the opinion of the applicants, the contested decision should be annulled under Article 263 TFEU, because it is in breach of the principle of proportionality which governs public procurement. More specifically, the contested decision rejected the applicants’ candidates due to the absence of certification in the PRINCE2 methodology, a criterion which is neither appropriate nor necessary and is therefore in breach of the principle of proportionality in public procurement.

Accordingly, the EMA committed a clear infringement of a specific rule of law (Article 102(1) of the Financial Regulation) which confers rights on individuals, and caused harm to the applicants, since they lost the opportunity to conclude individual Project Manager contracts, and consequently the conditions for the payment of compensation to the applicants are satisfied.
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) took the view that Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union did not permit account to be taken, for the purposes of entry on the list of promotable officials, the seniority acquired as a member of the temporary staff.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/43

Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Rafhaelo Gutti v OHIM — Transformados del Sur (CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA)

(Case T-504/15)

(2015/C 354/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Rafhaelo Gutti, SL (Loja, Spain) (represented by: I. L. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Transformados del Sur, SA (Seville, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA’ — Application for registration No 11 641 818

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 July 2015 in Case R 2424/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 2424/2014-4, in turn annul Opposition B 2 226 655 and grant the application for Community trade mark 11 641 818 CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA for goods in Class 25 which have been refused registration.

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/31

Action brought on 9 July 2015 — Renfe-Operadora v OHIM (AVE)

(Case T-367/15)

(2015/C 346/37)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Renfe-Operadora, Public business entity (Madrid, Spain), (represented by: J.-B. Devauriex, lawyer and M. Hernández Sandoval, 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 element ‘AVE’ — Application for restitutio in integrum — Application for registration No 5.640.198

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2015 in Case R 712/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision by granting its application for ‘Restitution in integrum’ and, consequently, declare admissible the earlier appeal brought by the applicant against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 4 February 2014, which is to be heard by the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM.

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Incomplete statement of facts in the contested decision, procedural irregularities giving rise to infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and of the duty of care owed to the applicant.

— Incorrect assessment of the evidence, lack of proportion between the formal defect supposedly committed by the applicant and the consequences of the same inasmuch as the applicant was deprived of its right to challenge a decision against his interests, and too strict an approach taken in the decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/42

Action brought on 17 September 2015 — Regent University v OHIM — Regent’s College (REGENT UNIVERSITY)

(Case T-538/15)

(2015/C 371/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Regent University (Virginia Beach, United States) (represented by: D. Wilkinson, Solicitor and E. Himsworth, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Regent’s College (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘REGENT UNIVERSITY’ — Community trade mark registration No 4 711 594

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 July 2015 in Case R 1859/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— remit the matter for further consideration by the Board;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board;

— order the cancellation applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board, in the event that the cancellation applicant becomes an intervening party in these proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/42

Action brought on 28 August 2015 — Fontem Holdings 4 v OHIM (BLU ECIGS)

(Case T-511/15)

(2015/C 363/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fontem Holdings 4 BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Poulter, 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 word mark ‘BLU ECIGS’ — Application for registration No 12 579 603

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2015 in Case R 2697/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Examiner dated 22 August 2014 for application No 12 579 603;

— accept the application No 12 579 603 for registration.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/45

Action brought on 15 July 2015 — J & Joy v OHIM — Joy-Sportswear (J AND JOY)

(Case T-387/15)

(2015/C 381/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: J & Joy SA (Waremme, Belgium) (represented by: A. Maqua and C. Pirenne, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joy-Sportswear GmbH (Ottensoos, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘J AND JOY’ — Application for registration No 11 409 935

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2015 in Case R 1352/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the Office:

— to review the division opposition judgment and declare the opposition inadmissible;

— to order the opponent to bear the costs and applicant’s fees in the opposition proceedings on the basis of article 81 CTM Regulation.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/40

Action brought on 15 September 2015 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID)

(Case T-536/15)

(2015/C 371/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, J. Bärenfänger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ÏD Group (Roubaix, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Fashion ID’ — Application for registration No 11 589 082

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2015 in Case R 2472/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision as far as it upheld the decision of the Opposition Division to reject the CTM No 11 589 082 with regard to the opposed goods and services in Classes 16 and 41;

— annul the corresponding decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 28 July 2014 (Case B 2 197 401) as far as the Opposition Division upheld the opposition to reject the CTM No 11 589 082;

— dismiss the Opposition dated 7 June 2012 against the CTM No 11 589 082 in its entirety;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/58

Action brought on 22 September 2012 — Guiral Broto v OHIM — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol)

(Case T-548/15)

(2015/C 398/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, 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 ‘Café del Sol’ — Application for registration No 6 1 05 985

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2015 in Case R 2755/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and declare the admissibility of the opposition based on the priority trade mark owned by the opposing party, Ramón Guiral Broto, Spanish trade mark No 2348110, falling within Class 42 of the International Classification.

— if the opposition is allowed, confirm the decision of the Opposition Division refusing Community trade mark No 006105985 CAFÉ DEL SOL applied for with respect to the ‘provision of food and beverages, temporary accommodation and catering’, falling within Class 43 of the International Classification, requested by German company Gastro & Soul GmbH; or, in the event that the Court does not have jurisdiction to do so, refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, with the direction to grant the opposition.

— with respect to the evidence, consider the documents annexed to the present application, numbered 1 to 4, as specified in the attached list of accompanying documents, as having been provided together with the relevant evidence in the administrative procedure.

Pleas in law

— Inconsistency ‘extra petitum’ of the contested decision, since the applicant did not raise the inadmissibility of the opposition as one of the grounds for the application.