ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/66

Action brought on 28 May 2014 — Best-Lock (Europe) v OHIM — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure)

(Case T-396/14)

2014/C 315/110

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd (Colne, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Becker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark)

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 26 March 2014 in Case R 1696/2013-4 and declare Community trade mark No 50 450 invalid in respect of Class 28;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the three-dimensional mark in the shape of a toy figure for goods in Classes 9, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark No 50 450

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Lego Juris A/S

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: absolute grounds for invalidity

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(e)(i) and (ii) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/27

Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Loewe Technologies v OHIM — DNS International (SoundVision)

(Case T-623/14)

2014/C 351/35

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Loewe Technologies GmbH (Kronach, Germany) (represented by: J. Pröll, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DNS International Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands)

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 12 June 2014 given in Case R 1625/2013-2.

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 black and white containing the verbal elements ‘SoundVision’ for goods in Classes 9, 15 and 20 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 5 05 519

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘LOEWE SOUNDVISION’ — CTM No 5 7 98 228

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and allowed for registration of the contested CTM

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 339/24

Action brought on 25 July 2014 — Messi Cuccittini v OHIM — J.M.-E.V. e hijos (MESSI)

(Case T-554/14)

2014/C 339/29

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo and M. Toro Gordillo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: J.M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL (Granollers, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 April 2014 in Case R 1553/2013-1, in which it dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Opposition Division upholding Opposition No B 1 9 38 458 and rejecting in part Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 81 154‘MESSI’ (figurative);

— order the party or parties opposing the action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including the word element ‘MESSI’ for goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 81 154

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word marks ‘MASSI’ for goods in classes 9, 25 and 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/15

Action brought on 6 August 2014 — Crosfield Italia v ECHA

(Case T-587/14)

2014/C 361/20

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Crosfield Italia Srl (Verona, Italy) (represented by: M. Baldassarri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should annul and thereby declare invalid and/or deprived of effect Decision No SME/2013/4672 of 28 May 2014 of the European Chemicals Agency, communicated to the applicant on 9 June 2014, thus rendering inoperative each of the effects of that decision, including the annulment of the invoices issued for the recovery of higher taxes and penalties purportedly owing.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision of the European Chemicals Agency that the applicant does not satisfy the requirements for being regarded as a small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), denying the applicant the benefits provided for in that regulation and providing that it is to pay the fees and charges allegedly owing.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-620/13 Marchi Industriale v ECHA.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/26

Action brought on 15 August 2014 — Lauritzen Holding v OHIM — IC Companys (IWEAR)

(Case T-622/14)

2014/C 351/34

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lauritzen Holding AS (Drøbak, Norway) (represented by: P. Walsh and S. Dunstan, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IC Companys A/S (København, Denmark)

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 2 June 2014 given in Case R 1935/2013-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IWEAR’ for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 29 806

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The earlier mark ‘INWEAR’ registered as CTM No 2 1 68 284

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

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 361/29

Action brought on 27 August 2014 — noon Copenhagen v OHIM — Wurster Diamonds (noon)

(Case T-637/14)

2014/C 361/43

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: noon Copenhagen A/S (Løsning, Denmark) (represented by: M. Zöbisch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wurster Diamonds GmbH (Pforzheim, Germany)

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 12 June 2014 given in Case R 955/2013-4.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘noon’ for goods and services in Class 14 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 2 15 556

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘noor’ for goods in Class 14

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/28

Action brought on 22 August 2014 — Urb Rulmenti Suceava v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB)

(Case T-635/14)

2014/C 361/42

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA (Suceava, Romania) (represented by: I. Burdusel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harun Adiguzel (Diosd, Hungary)

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 23 June 2014 given in Case R 1974/2013-4.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘URB’ for goods and services in Classes 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 35, 37 and 39-42 — the Community trade mark No 8 6 56 605

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

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(b) CTMR and relative grounds for invalidity under Article 8(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) CTMR

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) CTMR, Article 8(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) CTMR and Article 53(2) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 380/17

Action brought on 26 August 2014 — Frinsa del Noroeste v OHIM — Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce (FRISA)

(Case T-638/14)

2014/C 380/23

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Frinsa del Noroeste, SA (Santa Eugenia de Riviera, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce, SA (Espirito Santo, Brazil)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— refuse registration of Community trade mark No 1 0 3 29 721 FRISA to distinguish goods in Class 29 and services in Classes 35 and 39.

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: Figurative mark with word element ‘FRISA’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 35 and 39 — Application for Community trade mark No 1 0 3 29 721

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark with word element ‘Frinsa’ for goods in Class 29

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and opposition rejected in its entirety

Pleas in law: In its decision of 1 July 2014 in Joined Cases R 1547/2013-4 and R 1851/2013-4, the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) did not proceed to examine the applicant’s arguments since it confined itself to deciding the cases in an identical manner, examining only the proof of use submitted during the proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 372/22

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Bena Properties v Council

(Case T-602/14)

2014/C 372/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Corent d’Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

— consequently, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, to the extent that they concern the applicant;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law that are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council (1).

(1) OJ C 290, p. 13.
1.

By the first plea, it is alleged that the imposition of a flat-rate correction in the amount of EUR 2 7 31 208,07 and the method of calculation used were contrary to Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), to the guidelines set out in Commission document No VI/5330/97 of 23 December 1997 (Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section), and to Commission document AGRI/2005/64043 (Commission Communication on how the Commission intends in the context of the EAGGF-Guarantee clearance procedure to handle shortcomings in the context of cross-compliance control systems implemented by Member States) in so far as it is inappropriate to apply a flat-rate assessment, since the applicant had provided a specific evaluation of the actual risks for the fund. The implementing measures adopted by the Commission were not only incorrect, but also disproportionate and unjustified.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 388/23

Action brought on 15 September 2014 — Instituto dos vinhos do Douro e do Porto v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CARLOTTE)

(Case T-659/14)

2014/C 388/28

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Instituto dos vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (Peso da Régua, Portugal) (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd (Argyll, United Kingdom)

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 8 July 2014 given in Case R 946/2013-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Office.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘PORT CARLOTTE’ for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark No 5 4 21 474

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

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds laid down in Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g), Article 53(1)(c) in conjunction with article 8(4) and Article 53(2)(d) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the cancellation request

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (g) and Article 53(2)(d) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/47

Action brought on 1 August 2014 — EAEPC v Commission

(Case T-574/14)

2014/C 409/67

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, L. Ortiz Blanco, Á. Givaja Sanz and M. Araujo Boyd, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application for annulment admissible;

— annul the European Commission’s decision of 27 May 2014 in Case No COMP/AT.36957 Glaxo Wellcome;

— order the European Commission to bear its own costs as well as those which the EAEPC may incur in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 3654 final of 27 May 2014 in Case COMP/AT.36957 — Glaxo Wellcome, whereby the Commission rejects the applicant’s complaint thereby refusing a further investigation into the alleged infringement by Glaxo Wellcome SA, now GlaxoSmithKline SA, of Article 101 TFEU in the light of the judgments of 27 September 2006, GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission (T-168/01, ECR, EU:T:2006:265) and of 6 October 2009, GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission (C-501/06 P, C-513/06 P, C-515/06 P and C-519/06 P, ECR, EU:C:2009:610).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in breach of Articles 101, 105 and 266 TFEU and Article 7 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) in holding that the effect of the judgment GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission (EU:C:2009:610) is that the initial decision of 2001 was considered null and void and that the situation was to be regarded as if the Commission had never adopted the 2001 Decision. The applicant further alleges that the Commission infringed its duty to give sufficient reasons and its obligation to hear the applicant on this issue before adopting a definitive decision.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU or that the Commission failed to comply with its duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU when assessing the existence of an EU interest in the case. The applicant further submits that the Commission has infringed the applicant’s fundamental right to be heard.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that all matters of fact and law are not analysed in the contested decision.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
First plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment, failure to state reasons for the decision and breach of the principle of legality with regard to the Commission’s findings as to weaknesses in checking small parcels and in defining agricultural parcels.

The applicant claims that the Commission erred in finding that the Slovene system allows farmers to add, in their declarations of parcels of land, the long thin strips of meadows that surround arable crops, in particular, so that the areas shown in the graphs of the parcels of agricultural land of a holding [grafične enote rabe zemljišča kmetijskega gospodarstva (GERK)] become eligible, which could give rise to inaccuracy in measurements and so to the acceptance of parcels of less than the minimum size for an agricultural parcel in accordance with Article 14(4) of Regulation No 796/2004 (1) and Article 13(9) of Regulation No 1122/2009. (2)
1.

First plea: Law No 3717/2008, which provided for the closure of Olimpiaki Aeroporia and the dismissal of all its temporary employees, is a purely Community measure that in essence was imposed by the institutions of the European Union, in particular the ECB and the European Commission, and all the legislative measures of the Greek Government were adopted on the recommendation and, to be more precise, after decision of the Eurogroup, ECOFIN, the ECB and the European Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/25

Action brought on 15 July 2014 — Rosenich v OHIM

(Case T-527/14)

(2014/C 462/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Paul Rosenich (Triesenberg, Liechtenstein) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and C. Eckhartt, lawyers)

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

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 29 April 2014 in Case R 2063/2012-4;

— annul the decision taken by the Director of the ‘Operations Support Department’ of OHIM of 7 September 2012, by which the applicant’s application to be included in the list of professional representatives before the defendant office was rejected, on the basis of the applicant’s complaint of 7 November 2012;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 93 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with the principle of freedom to provide services within the European Economic Area as provided for by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, since it confirms the rejection of his application to be included in the list of professional representatives before OHIM, despite the fact that, although he does not have his professional residence in a Member State of the European Union, he has it in a Member State of the European Economic Area.
—

instruct an expert report, in order that there should be examined the reported finding in the audit report of KPMG Certified Auditors AG, which was wrongly and unlawfully accepted by the European Commission, that there is a ‘lack of alternative evidence to confirm the requested personnel costs’. That factor is of crucial importance to the outcome of the case, since the personnel costs incorporate all the indirect costs. The applicant emphasises that the audit report of KPMG AG, in respect of which DABNET AEBE submitted written comments and a request for a re-examination with full supporting evidence, was accepted by the European Commission without a sufficient statement of reasons or any response to the evidence, and