ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/22

Action brought on 15 November 2013 — Mustang v OHIM — Dubek (20 CLASS A FILTER CIGARETTES Mustang)

(Case T-606/13)

2014/C 39/39

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Künzelsau, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dubek Ltd (Petach Tikva, Israel)

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 13 September 2013 in Case R 416/2012-4 concerning the opposition proceedings against Community trade mark application No 6 065 098;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dubek Ltd

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘20 CLASS A FILTER CIGARETTES Mustang’ for goods in Class 34 — Community trade mark application No 6 065 098

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark and figurative mark ‘MUSTANG’ for goods in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/17

Action brought on 30 December 2013 — 9Flats v OHIM — Tibesoca (9flats.com)

(Case T-713/13)

2014/C 61/30

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: 9Flats GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Stoffregen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tibesoca, SL (Valencia, Spain)

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 25 October 2013 in Case R 1671/2012-2;

— annul the decision of OHIM’s Opposition Division of 13 July 2012 in opposition proceedings No B 1 898 686;

— reject the opposition to registration of the mark ‘9flats.com’ — Community trade mark application No 9 832 635

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: 9Flats GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘9flats.com’ for services in Classes 36, 38, 39 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 832 635

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Tibesoca, SL

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark which includes the number and word elements ‘40 flats apartments’ for services in Class 43, Spanish figurative mark which includes the number and word elements ‘11 flats apartments’ for services in Class 43, and Spanish figurative mark which includes the numbers and the word element ‘50 flats’ for services in Class 43

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment in part of the decision of the Opposition Division

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/40

Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-659/13)

2014/C 45/70

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in its entirety Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing ITS Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 1) and

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

In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 3(1), Article 8 and Article 9(1)(a) of the contested regulation and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 3 pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive 2010/40/EU (1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof In this connection, the applicant states that the Commission, by adopting the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the authority laid down by Article 7(1) of Directive No 2010/40 in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 290 TFEU In this plea, the applicant claims that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded its delegated power to adopt non-legislative acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties.

(1) Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport (OJ 2010 L 207, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/41

Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Blue Coat Systems (BLUECO)

(Case T-685/13)

2014/C 52/79

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Pechan and S. Körber, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (Sunnyvale, United States of America)

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 8 October 2013 in Case R 2028/2012-1 and alter it to the effect that the appeal is well founded and the opposition is therefore to be rejected in its entirety;

— Order OHIM and Blue Coast Systems, Inc., should the latter intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘BLUECO’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 9 724 675

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Blue Coat Systems, Inc.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘BLUE COAT’ for goods in Class 9 and services in Classes 38 and 42 — Community trade mark No 3 016 235

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/9

Action brought on 29 November 2013 — Eycharis Nezi v OHIM — Etam (E)

(Case T-645/13)

2014/C 61/15

Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

Parties

Applicant): Eycharis Nezi (Mykonos, Greece) (represented by: A Salkitzoglou, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Etam SAS (Clichy, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General 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 3 October 2013 in Case R 329/2013-4;

— vary the above decision so that the applicant’s mark is registered for all the goods and service which were applied for and,

— order the opponent to pay all the applicant’s legal costs, including all costs of any interveners.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Ε’, for goods and services in Classes 14, 16, 18, 25, 26, 35 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 8701138.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The opponent before the Board of Appeal.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community figurative mark ‘Ε’, for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

— Infringement of Article 4 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009, and
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Gat Microencapsulation/OHMI — BASF (KARIS)

(Case T-720/13)

(2014/C 71/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Gat Microencapsulation AG (Ebenfurth, Austria) (represented by: S. Soler Lerma and M. C. March Cabrelles, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision insofar appeal submitted by the appellant/applicant was rejected;

— Order OHIM and the interveners to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Gat Microencapsulation AG

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KARIS’, for a list of goods and services in Classes 1, 5 and 35

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BASF SE

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark ‘CARYX’, for goods in classes 1 and 5; international trade mark ‘CARYX’, for goods in classes 1 and 5; Hungarian, Italian and Benelux trade mark ‘AKRIS’, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the Community trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial rejection of the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
—

annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/20

Action brought on 31 December 2013 — Invivo v OLAF

(Case T-690/13)

2014/C 151/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Invivo Ltd (Abinsk, Russia) (represented by: T. Huopalainen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

— Review the legality of a failure to act on the part of the defendant in case OF/2013/0902 after it has been called upon to act by the applicant;

— Order the defendant to act.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging failure to act based on Article 265 TFEU, as the financial interests of the EU are involved within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 (1) when the national agency that grants the aid receives most of its funds from the EU and where on the alleged abuser side legal entities from at least two member states are involved.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ 1999 L 136, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/25

Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Kinnarps v OHIM (MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK)

(Case T-697/13)

2014/C 93/44

Language in which the application was lodged: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Kinnarps AB (Falköping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2013 in Case R 2272/2012-2;

— Declare that the applicant’s trade mark MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK, in respect of the goods and services claimed in the case, has the necessary distinctive character for registration as a Community trade mark;

— Order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings before both the General Court and OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark applied for: Word mark ‘MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 20, 35 and 42 — application for registration of a Community trade mark No 10 887 982

Decision of the Examiners: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Failure to have regard to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/49

Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Aluminios Cortizo and Cortizo Cartera v Commission

(Case T-1/14)

2014/C 52/94

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Aluminios Cortizo, SAU (Extramundi, Spain) and Cortizo Cartera, SL (Extramundi, Spain) (represented by: A. Beiras Cal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— in the alternative, annul the order to reimburse the State aid; and

— in the further alternative, quantify that aid in accordance with the investor’s actual net profit.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in the present proceedings is the same as that in Case T-515/13 Spain v Commission (OJ 2013 C 336, p. 29).

In support of their action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, since the State aid granted to the investor entailed neither selectivity nor distortion.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU on the basis of the complete failure to state reasons for the exclusion of the ship-owner and/or shipyard as the recipient of the bulk of the aid.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality — in connection with the loss of profit — in requiring the investor to reimburse aid which was transferred to a third party.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, since the Commission, through letters of the Commissioner, and by its inactivity, gave rise to the legitimate appearance that the ‘SEAF’ was lawful.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty, since the imposition of a duty to reimburse aid which was not received/transferred by the investor constitutes confiscation without any legal basis.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/27

Action brought on 22 January 2014 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-51/14)

2014/C 93/47

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, J. Vikáková, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the implementing decision of the European Commission C(2013) 7615 of 13 November 2013 on the rejection of an application for entry in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (Pomazánkové máslo (TSG)) and

— Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging the infringement of Articles 50 and 52 of Regulation No 1151/2012 in conjunction with Article 18 thereof. The applicant submits that the Commission did not scrutinise whether the conditions were met for the entry of the name ‘Pomazánkové máslo’ as a traditional speciality guaranteed and rejected the application in question for a reason other than the fact that it did not meet those conditions.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/16

Action brought on 21 January 2014 — Genossenschaftskellerei Rosswag- Mühlhausen v OHIM (Lembergerland)

(Case T-55/14)

2014/C 78/32

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Genossenschaftskellerei Rosswag- Mühlhausen eG (Vaihingen an der Enz, Germany) (represented by H. Steffan, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 14 November 2013 in Case R 566/2013-1 relating to Community trade mark application No 11 134 947;

— as regards the decision of the Board of Appeal of 14 November 2013 in Case R 566/2013-1, oblige the defendant to register the mark applied for;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Lembergerland’ for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 11 134 947

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/53

Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Deutsche Post AG v OHIM

(Case T-102/14)

2014/C 112/68

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and C. Giersdorf, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PostNL Holding BV (Den Haag, Netherlands)

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 11 December 2013 in Case R 2108/2012 1;

— order the defendant and, as the case may be, the other party to the proceedings, to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Deutsche Post AG

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘TPG POST’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 9, 16, 20, 35, 38 and 39 (Community trade mark registration No 2 920 916)

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community word marks ‘DP’, ‘POST’ and ‘Deutsche Post’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 16, 25, 28, 35, 36, 38, 39 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/51

Action brought on 12 February 2014 — Tecalan v OHIM (TECALAN)

(Case T-100/14)

2014/C 112/66

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Tecalan GmbH (Grünberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Holthaus, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ensinger GmbH (Nufringen, Germany)

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 11 December 2013 in Case R 2308/2012-1;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Tecalan GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Wordmark TECALAN for goods in Class 17 (Community trade mark registration No 6 203 285)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ensinger GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark TECADUR for goods in Class 17

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

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 129/35

Action brought on 3 March 2014 — adidas v OHIM — Shoe Branding Europe (Device of two parallel stripes)

(Case T-145/14)

2014/C 129/42

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: adidas (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium)

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 28 November 2013 given in Case R 1208/2012-2;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

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 mark (‘other type of mark’) for footwear in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 8 398 141

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registrations Nos 3 517 646, 3 517 612, 3 517 588, 3 517 661, 4 269 072, 6 081 889; German trade mark registrations Nos 944 624, 944 623, 399 50 559, 897 134; International trade mark registration No 391 692 for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28; and non-registered mark/sign used in the course of trade in Germany

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(4) CTMR.