ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

In support of that plea, the Hellenic Republic invokes the absence of economic advantage and the absence of selectivity with respect to the measures at issue and particularly the fact that the defendant failed to define correctly the reference system of the measures at issue, failed to assess the substantially distinct legal and factual situation of the undertakings which are active in public infrastructure projects in the light of the particular characteristics of the concession agreements with that subject matter and disregarded the basic and guiding principles of the general tax system which the measures at issue manifestly serve.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/45

Action brought on 23 June 2015 — Universal Protein Supplements v OHIM (Representation of a body builder)

(Case T-335/15)

(2015/C 279/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Universal Protein Supplements Corp. (New Brunswick, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark representing a body builder — Application for registration No 13 060 991

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2015 in Case R 2958/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law
—

The enactment of the contested measures violates the principle of effectiveness, the right to effective judicial protection, and the applicant’s rights under Article 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or under Article 6 and Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights in that they set at naught the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case T-176/12.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/79

Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Alpex Pharma v OHIM — Astex Pharmaceuticals (ASTEX)

(Case T-355/15)

(2015/C 294/95)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alpex Pharma SA (Mezzovico-Vira, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Bacchini and M. Mazzitelli, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Pleasanton, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ASTEX’ — Application for registration No 1 0 8 05 281

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2015 in Case R 593/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/67

Action brought on 22 July 2015 — Herm. Sprenger v OHIM — web2get (Shape of an articulated stirrup)

(Case T-396/15)

(2015/C 302/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: V. Schiller, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: web2get GmbH & Co. KG (Dülmen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of an articulated stirrup) — Community trade mark No 1 599 620

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2015 in Case R 520/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject web2get GmbH & Co. KG’s application for a declaration that the applicant’s Community trade mark No 1 599 620 is invalid;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) and (2) in conjunction with Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(i) and (ii) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/39

Action brought on 30 July 2015 — Fruit of the Loom v OHIM — Takko (FRUIT)

(Case T-431/15)

(2015/C 320/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (Bowling Green, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Takko Holding GmbH (Telgte, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘FRUIT’ — Community trade mark registration No 5 077 508

Procedure before OHIM: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2015 in Case R 1641/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/37

Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Mad Catz Interactive (MAD CATZ)

(Case T-429/15)

(2015/C 320/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. (San Diego, United States)

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 ‘MAD CATZ’ — Community trade mark application No 11 390 846

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2015 in Case R 2176/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 June 2014 in Opposition B 2 182 312;

— reject the opposed mark for all goods in class 25;

— order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/35

Action brought on 12 August 2015 — L’Oréal v OHIm — LR Health & Beauty Systems (LR)

(Case T-475/15)

(2015/C 328/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Dissmann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘LR’ — Community trade mark No 11 047 578

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2015 in Case R 1143/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partly annul the contested decision as far as the Board of Appeal rejects under point 2 the Plaintiff’s request for proof of use of the Intervener’s earlier trademarks as belated;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the court as well as the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/32

Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of interlaced signs)

(Case T-461/15)

(2015/C 328/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guess? IP Holder LP (Los Angeles, United States)

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: Figurative mark (Representation of interlaced signs) — Community trade mark No 5 538 012

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2015 in Case R 2049/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings;

— order Guess? IP Holder L.P. to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before both the OHIM Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

annul the Request Form for Services of the European Medicines Agency No SC002, in the context of the ΕΜΑ/2012/10/ICT framework-agreement, which was communicated to the applicants on 22/05/2015, by means of an e-mail from the Head of the Central Sourcing Unit; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/45

Action brought on 31 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (Viewty)

(Case T-498/15)

(2015/C 337/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Viewty’ — Application for registration No 6 266 531

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2015 in Joined Cases R 1935/2014-2 and R 1563/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/41

Action brought on 31 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SMILE)

(Case T-499/15)

(2015/C 354/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VIEWTY SMILE’ — Application for registration No 9 125 601

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2015 in Joined Cases R 1565/2014-2 and R 1939/2014-2

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
2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 4 and 6 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the regulations’) and of Article 9 of Annex IX to the regulations, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal acknowledges that the competent appointing authority does not have the power to penalise the official concerned by directly determining his ‘classification’ in a particular grade, but it has solely the power to downgrade him, without however properly deducing the consequences thereof.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/42

Action brought on 4 September 2015 — myToys.de v OHIM — Laboratorios Indas (myBaby)

(Case T-519/15)

(2015/C 363/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: myToys.de GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Hauss-Löhde and M. Mette, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Indas, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcon, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘myBaby’ — Application for registration No 10 846 426

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2015 in Case R 1002/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2015 in the appeal proceedings R 1002/2014-2;

— dismiss the opposition in its entirety;

— revoke the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 May 2015 in appeal proceedings R 1137/2014-2;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, namely the respect of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/68

Action brought on 24 September 2015 — Morgese e.a. v OHIM — All Star

(Case T-568/15)

(2015/C 398/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Giuseppe Morgese (Barletta, Italy), Pasquale Morgese (Barletta, Italy), Felice D’Onofrio (Barletta, Italy) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: All Star CV (Hilversum, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicants

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘2 STAR 2S’ — Application for registration No 1 0 1 61 065

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1July 2015 in Case R 1906/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the Board’s Decision and Order;

— the applicants seek an award of costs of this application and the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal together with any further or other relief and/or Order that the Court may consider is appropriate.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/39

Action brought on 1 October 2015 — Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez v OHIM — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control (SHERPA)

(Case T-577/15)

(2015/C 406/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Xabier Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez (Erandio, Spain) (represented by: Esteve Sanz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, SL (Tres Cantos (Madrid), Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SHERPA’– Community trade mark No 10 000 339

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2015 in Case R 1135/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

— order OHIM and, where appropriate, the intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 63(1), 64(1) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

— Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 22 of Regulation No 2868/95.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/38

Action brought on 28 September 2015 — Kozmetika Afrodita v OHIM — Núñez Martín and Machado Montesinos (KOZMETIKA AFRODITA)

(Case T-574/15)

(2015/C 406/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: Slovene

Parties

Applicant: Kozmetika Afrodita d.o.o. (Rogaška Slatina, Slovenia) (represented by: B. Grešak, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pedro Nuñez Martín (Madrid, Spain) and Carmen Guillermina Machado Montesinos (Madrid)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the contested mark: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘KOZMETIKA AFRODITA’ — Registration No 11 798 253

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2015 in Case R 2577/2014-4

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 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/46

Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — YTL Hotels & Properties (SPA VILLAGE)

(Case T-625/15)

(2016/C 016/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: YTL Hotels & Properties Sdn Bhd (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SPA VILLAGE’ — Application for registration No 3 841 202

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2015 in Case R 1954/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to satisfy the criterion for listing the applicants prescribed in Article 1 of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (JO 2011 L 76, p. 63) (as amended) and Article 2 of Council Regulation Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4) (as amended). The applicants contend that they have not been ‘identified as responsible’ for the misappropriation of Egyptian State funds or human rights violations in Egypt, or a person associated with anyone properly so identified.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/63

Action brought on 29 October 2015 — Repsol v OHIM — Basic (BASIC)

(Case T-609/15)

(2016/C 027/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Repsol, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel (München, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘BASIC’– Community trade mark No 5 648 159

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 August 2015 in Case R 2384/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— admit this writ of claim, with all the documents annexed, and the correspondent copies;

— admit all the evidences attached to this writ;

— annul the contested decision;

— order the Applicant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea(s) in law

— The Board of appeal has incorrectly assessed the evidence submitted by Basic AG as to its genuine use of a company names ‘Basic AG’ and ‘Basic’ use in the course of trade in Germany;

— The contested decision is incorrectly based on article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, in relation to Article 53 (1) (c), as far as between the marks ‘basic’ figuratives there is no likelihood of confusion. The term basic is lack of distinctiveness;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/73

Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Malta Cross Foundation International v OHIM — Malteser Hilfsdienst (Malta Cross International Foundation)

(Case T-672/15)

(2016/C 027/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Malta Cross Foundation International, Inc. (Hallandale Beach, United States) (represented by: J. Pimenta, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Malteser Hilfsdienst e.V. (Cologne, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Malta Cross International Foundation’ — Application for registration No 7 252 554

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2015 in Case R 863/2011-G

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and, if the case might be, the intervener to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and of the appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 since ACER’s conclusion that structural congestion exists on the German-Austrian border is not supported by facts and is incompatible with the definition of congestion. Furthermore, the opinion lacks an impact assessment and a thorough evaluation of alternative solutions. Finally, the capacity allocation procedure as set out in the opinion is neither an appropriate nor a proportionate remedy for the problems identified in the opinion.