ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/47

Action brought on 27 May 2014 — CBM Creative Brands Marken v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (TRECOLORE)

(Case T-365/14)

2014/C 253/62

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, M. Grundmann and N. Kerger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (Rome, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of April 1, 2014, in Case R 411/2013-5 in so far as the Fifth Board of Appeal annuls the decision of the Opposition Division, upholds the opposition and rejects the Application No 00 9 8 77 416 in regard of the goods in classes 18 and 25 and in regard of the services ‘Retail services, including via websites and teleshopping, in relation to clothing, footwear, headgear, sunglasses, precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, jewellery, precious stones, horological and chronometric instruments, leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials, animal skins, hides, trunks and travelling bags, bags, handbags, wallets, purses, key cases, rucksacks, pouches, umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks, whips, harness and saddlery’ of class 35;

— Dismiss the opposition against Application No 00 9 8 77 416 in its entirety;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘TRECOLORE’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 8 77 416

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The community and national word and figurative mark ‘FRECCE TRICOLORI’, for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 28 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/30

Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS)

(Case T-252/14)

2014/C 253/44

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Chemo Ibérica, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M.I. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

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 10 February 2014 in Case R 936/2013-4, and accordingly order that Community trade mark No 1 0 2 48 367‘EXELTIS’ should be granted in relation to Class 5 of the International Classification;

— order the defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Chemo Ibérica, SA

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EXELTIS’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 2 48 367

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Novartis AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘EXELON’ for goods in Class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Application rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/32

Action brought on 28 April 2014 — City Index/OHIM — Citigroup and Citibank (CITY INDEX)

(Case T-269/14)

2014/C 253/47

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: City Index Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank, NA (New York, USA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Partially annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 February 2014 in case R 172/2013-2 that upheld the opposition in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 36;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CITY INDEX’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 36 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 7 4 58 094

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank, NA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘citi’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 36 and 42, the community and national figurative marks containing the word elements ‘citifinancial’ and ‘citibank’, as well as the community and national word marks ‘CITICAPITAL’, ‘CITIMONEY’, ‘CITIFINANCIAL’, ‘CITI’, ‘CITIBOND’, ‘CITICONNECT’, ‘CITIBANK’ and ‘CITICARD’

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was partially annulled and the Community trade mark application partially rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/53

Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Bon Net v OHIM — Aldi (Bon Appétit!)

(Case T-485/14)

2014/C 261/83

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bon Net OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim/Ruhr, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 April 2014 given in Case R 1199/2013-2.

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 in colours red, white and blue containing the verbal elements ‘Bon Appétit!’ for goods in Class 29 — Community trade mark application No 8 6 93 764

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National trade mark registrations

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/57

Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Uriinmuebles v Commission

(Case T-429/14)

2014/C 253/77

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Uriinmuebles, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; and

— order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-392/14 Gutser v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/31

Action brought on 27 May 2014 — REWE-Zentral/OHIM — Vicente Gandia Pla (MY PLANET)

(Case T-362/14)

2014/C 261/55

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Köln, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and A. Wagner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vicente Gandia Pla, SA (Chiva, Spain)

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 6 March 2014 in Case R 201/2013-1;

— Condemn the defendant to the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MY PLANET’ for goods in classes 25, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 8 566 515

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Vicente Gandia Pla, SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘EL MIRACLE PLANET’ for goods in classes 25, 32 and 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: The Opposition was allowed

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009
1.

First plea in law, alleging that Article 29 TEU was not a proper legal basis for the contested decision because the complaint made against the applicant did not identify him as an individual having undermined the rule of law or human rights in Ukraine within the meaning of Articles 21(2) and 23 TEU. The applicant submits that as the contested decision was invalid, the Council could not rely on Article 215(2) TFEU to enact the contested regulation. At the time the restrictive measures were imposed, there was, according to the applicant, no charge or claim against him that his activities threatened to undermine the rule of law or violated any human rights in Ukraine.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision must be annulled in its entirety to the extent that it relies to a decisive extent on evidence that the Commission illegally seized during inspections at the premises of Nexans. Such evidence is essential to the Commission’s findings and in particular to the establishment of a single and continuous nature of the infringement as well as to the establishment of an allocation between European companies of projects within the European Economic Area (EEA).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/40

Action brought on 6 June 2014 — FCC Aqualia v OHIM — Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona (AQUALOGY)

(Case T-402/14)

2014/C 261/66

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: FCC Aqualia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda de Sousa and N. González-Alberto Rodríguez, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in part the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 March 2014 in Case R 1209/2013-1, and refuse registration of Community trade mark No 10 122 976 ‘AQUALOGY’ for services in Classes 35, 37, 39, 40 and 42 on the basis of the relative ground for refusal set out in Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— in the alternative, should the above form of order not be granted in its entirety, annul in part the contested decision on the basis of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, in so far as that decision confirmed the rejection of the opposition against Community trade mark No 10 122 976 ‘AQUALOGY’ for services in Classes 35, 37, 39, 40 and 42, and refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal for the appeal to be examined once more in its entirety so far as the ground for refusal set out in the abovementioned article is concerned;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, SA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including the word element ‘AQUALOGY’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 27, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 10 122 976

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘AQUALIA’ and national figurative mark including the word element ‘AQUALIA’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/53

Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Berry Investments v Council

(Case T-496/14)

2014/C 292/65

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Berry Investments (Monrovia, Liberia) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 4 36 357 ,19, as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts, with interest from the date when the applicant was unlawfully divested of its deposits (29/03/2013) until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with daily interest from the delivery of the judgment in these proceedings until full payment;

— in the alternative, order the defendant to pay to the applicant 4/5 of the above amount, that is, the sum of EUR 3 49 085 ,75, as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts, with interest from the date when the applicant was unlawfully divested of its deposits (29/03/2013) until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with daily interest from the delivery of the judgment in these proceedings until full payment;

— in the further alternative, order the defendant to pay such amount as the General Court shall determine to the applicant as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000, as compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicant by the infringement of the principle of equal treatment;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000, as compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicant by the infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU the applicant seeks from the General Court of the European Union, which has jurisdiction under Article 268 TFEU, reparation in respect of the damage it has suffered because of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.

The applicant maintains that that damage arose when the defendant, acting ultra vires and contrary to secondary EU law and to the general principles of EU law, imposed and, consequently, caused the reduction of the applicant’s bank deposits in Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd. (Laiki Τrapeza) and, in any event, contributed to it.

In particular, the applicant maintains that the defendant committed the following infringements of fundamental rights and general principles of EU law:

— First, infringement of the right to property;

— Second, infringement of the principle of equal treatment· and

— Third, infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and the principle of legal certainty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/51

Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Espacio Activos Financieros v Commission

(Case T-489/14)

2014/C 282/66

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Espacio Activos Financieros, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. De Zunzunegui Ruano, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

— in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

— in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in clear breach of the principle of legal certainty; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

The applicant alleges, in particular, that the Commission erred in characterising as State aid the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as a whole, as well as the individual measures; that it erred in its identification of the beneficiary of the measures; and that it acted in breach of the principle of legal certainty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/47

Action brought on 3 July 2014 — Staywell Hospitality Group v. OHIM — Sheraton International IP (PARK REGIS)

(Case T-510/14)

2014/C 303/55

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (Sydney, Australia) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sheraton International IP LLC (Stamford, United States of America)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 30 April 2014 in Cases R 240/2013-5 and R 303/2013-5 insofar as it concerns Case R 240/2013-5; and

— condemn the Defendant to bear its own and pay the Applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘PARK REGIS’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 4 88 933

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sheraton International IP LLC

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative and word marks ‘ST. REGIS’ for services in Classes 36, 42 and 43, the international trade mark registration designating the European Union of the word mark ‘ST. REGIS’ for services in Class 36 as well as the well-known figurative and word marks ‘ST. REGIS’ in the European Union

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeals were dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/52

Action brought on 26 June14 — Theodorakis and Theodoraki v Council

(Case T-495/14)

2014/C 292/64

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: Georgios Theodorakis (Chania. Greece) and Maria Theodoraki (Chania. Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— order the defendant to pay to the applicants the sum of EUR 1 4 31 193 ,58, as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts, with interest from the date when the applicant was unlawfully divested of its deposits (29/03/2013) until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with daily interest from the delivery of the judgment in these proceedings until full payment;

— in the alternative, order the defendant to pay to the applicants 4/5 of the above amount, that is, the sum of EUR 1 1 44 954 ,86, as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts, with interest from the date when the applicant was unlawfully divested of its deposits (29/03/2013) until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with daily interest from the delivery of the judgment in these proceedings until full payment;

— in the further alternative, order the defendant to pay such amount as the General Court shall determine to the applicants as compensation for the damage caused to the applicants by the defendant’s unlawful acts;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000, as compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicants by the infringement of the principle of equal treatment;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000, as compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicants by the infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and

— order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU the applicants seek from the General Court of the European Union, which has jurisdiction under Article 268 TFEU, reparation in respect of the damage they have suffered because of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.

The applicants maintain that that damage arose when the defendant, acting ultra vires and contrary to secondary EU law and to the general principles of EU law, imposed and, consequently, caused the reduction of the applicants’ bank deposits in Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd. (Laiki Τrapeza) and, in any event, contributed to it.

In particular, the applicants maintain that the defendant committed the following infringements of fundamental rights and general principles of EU law:

— First, infringement of the right to property;

— Second, infringement of the principle of equal treatment· and

— Third, infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and the principle of legal certainty.
3.

Third plea in law: infringement of the right to effective judicial protection as regards the reasons stated for the measures, the lack of evidence for the reasons stated and the rights of defence and of property, since the requirements to state reasons and to provide actual evidence were not met, which affects the other rights.