ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/27

Action brought on 25 May 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers/OHIM — Eduardo López Cabré (VOGUE)

(Case T-229/12)

2012/C 227/46

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, USA) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eduardo López Cabré (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

— 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 2012 (R 1170/2011-4);

— alternatively, to uphold the Opposition only so far as it relates to the following goods umbrellas, parasols and accessories for umbrellas and parasols; and

— to order the Opponent to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘VOGUE’ for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 26, 28, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 4 023 041

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 community and national word mark ‘VOGUE’ and the national figurative mark ‘VOGUE moda en lluvia’ for goods in class 18

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties and an error of law, inasmuch as the Commission issued debit notes in respect of unfounded claims and effected recovery by offsetting claims that are not certain, of a fixed amount and due. The applicant submits that the Commission is demanding sums which exceed those granted under the legal rules currently in force in connection with the subrogation of the Commission to the rights of its officials who are the victims of accidents caused by persons who are insured in respect of statutory liability by the applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/28

Action brought on 29 May 2012 — International Brands Germany v OHIM — Stuffer (ALOHA 100 % NATURAL)

(Case T-243/12)

2012/C 217/58

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: International Brands Germany GmbH & Co. KG (Paderborn, Germany) (represented by: B. Hein and M. Hoffmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stuffer SpA (Bolzano, Italy)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2012 in case R 1058/2011-1 and reject the opposition;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: International Brands Germany GmbH & Co. KG

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘ALOHA 100 % NATURAL’ for goods in Class 32 — application No 7 050 701

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Stuffer SpA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘ALOA’ for goods in Class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
9.

Ninth, the Commission erroneously proceeds on the assumption that the applicant participated in the (allegedly) anti-competitive collusion from 16 November 1999 to 3 July 2007. The complaint of a single and continuous infringement from 16 November 1999 to 3 July 2007 cannot, however, be sustained owing to an independent price increase for 2001 and the absence of agreement in respect of 2002. Thus, at most, the decision could include the period from 2003. However, in so far as it is asserted that the applicant engaged in anti-competitive conduct beyond the German market, the most that might be attributed to the applicant would be an infringement of Article 101 TFEU in 2007. The applicant therefore takes the view that there is no basis for any assumption, with regard to the applicant, of an infringement lasting seven years and seven months.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 273/16

Action brought on 2 July 2012 — Evropaiki Dinamiki v Commission

(Case T-297/12)

2012/C 273/27

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Khristianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— order the Commission to pay it the sum of EUR 50 000 as compensation for the harm to its professional reputation which it has suffered on account of infringement of its professional confidentiality by the Commission, with compensatory interest from 3 July 2007 to delivery of the judgment in the present dispute and until full payment;

— order the Commission to pay its costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks compensation from the General Court of the European Union for the harm which it has suffered on account of the unlawful conduct on the part of the European Commission (‘the Commission’), under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU (non-contractual liability of the European Union). Specifically, the Commission caused damage to the applicant’s professional reputation by sending a document which concerned an investigation being conducted in respect of the applicant to third-party companies on 3 July 2007.

The applicant submits that the conditions for establishing the Commission’s non-contractual liability, as set out in settled case-law, that enable it to be compensated for the damage to its professional reputation are met, since the Commission unlawfully disclosed to third parties the existence and the content of an investigation conducted in its regard and confidential professional data concerning it.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/32

Action brought on 22 June 2012 — FIS’D v Commission

(Case T-283/12)

2012/C 243/57

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: FIS’D — Formazione integrata superiore del design (Catanzaro, Italy) (represented by: S. Baratti and A. Sodano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant the requests for measures of organisation of procedure and/or for measures of inquiry;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the European Commission’s decision of 12 April 2012 (Ref. Ares (2012) 446225), which dismissed the applicant’s administrative appeal lodged under Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 against the decision of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (‘the EACEA’) of 13 January 2012 (‘Termination of the Framework Partnership Agreement 2011-0181, Erasmus Mundus Masters Course in City Regeneration’) terminating early the Framework Partnership Agreement 2011-0181 concluded under the Erasmus Mundus programme 2009-2013.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of legal provisions in the form of a manifest error of assessment and failure to state adequate reasons: — The applicant submits that the Commission failed to find that the EACEA clearly infringed (i) Sections II.A.1 and II.B.4 of the Administrative and Financial Handbook — which forms an integral part of the Specific Grant Agreement annexed to the Framework Partnership Agreement — and (ii) Article II.12.3 of the Framework Partnership Agreement, when the EACEA assessed the modified plan for the reCity Erasmus Mundus Master Course submitted by the Università degli Studi ‘Mediterranea’ di Reggio Calabria on 21 December 2011 on behalf of a consortium different from the original one.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of legal provisions in the form of a manifest error of assessment: — In that connection, the applicant states that the Commission failed to find that the EACEA’s decision agreeing to the extension of the Specific Grant Agreement for funding the Masters Course underway — on the basis of the new plan submitted by the Università degli Studi ‘Mediterranea’ di Reggio Calabria on 21 December 2011 to be implemented by a consortium with a different membership from the original one — was vitiated by a manifest infringement of Articles I.3 and II.12.3 of the Framework Partnership Agreement, misuse of powers and, in particular, distortion, failure to fulfil an essential precondition, illogical and inconsistent reasoning and failure to state adequate reasons.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 250/20

Action brought on 10 July 2012 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

(Case T-301/12)

2012/C 250/36

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Barnden, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision of 25 May 2012 refusing a marketing authorisation for ‘Orphacol — Cholic acid’;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes both Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (2) because the Commission was not entitled to re-initiate the Comitology Procedure with a draft decision substantively the same as the version already rejected by the Standing Committee and Appeal Committee, nor was it empowered to adopt the contested decision.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is in any event vitiated by fundamental errors of law in the interpretation of Directive 2001/83/EC (as amended) (3).

(1) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13)

(2) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1)

(3) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67)
3.

Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and of assessment by virtue of breach of the obligation of professional secrecy under Article 339 TFEU and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and failure to have regard to the confidentiality of the information to be published. — In the context of this plea, the applicant submits that the passages which the Commission plans to publish in the extended non-confidential version of the decision are protected by professional secrecy and to some extent also contain business secrets. The publication of that information in the internet infringes the applicant’s right to the maintenance of professional secrecy. — Further, the applicant submits that the planned publication of the information provided by the leniency applicants falls within the scope of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (2) and that Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (3) and the Leniency Notice (4) contain special rules on access to such information provided by leniency applicants. Therefore, according to the applicant, and in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice (Case C-139/07 P Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau [2010] ECR I-5885, and judgment of 28 June 2012 in Case C-404/10 P Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob, not yet published in the ECR), there is a presumption that publication of that information will harm the applicant’s commercial interests and the purpose of the Commission’s investigation. A special public interest in the publication of that information must therefore be specifically established. According to the applicant the hearing officer failed to do this, and thus made a manifest error of assessment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/34

Action brought on 27 July 2012 — Sartorius Weighing Technology v OHIM (Representation of a yellow curve)

(Case T-331/12)

2012/C 287/64

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sartorius Weighing Technology GmbH (Göttingen, Germany) (represented by K. Welkerling, 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 First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 May 2012 in Case R 1783/2011-1;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: other mark, which represents a yellow curve at the bottom edge of an electronic display unit, for goods in Classes 7, 9, 10 and 11

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
—

In the alternative, amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2012 in case R 1451/2011-2, and rule that the appeal is justified; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/13

Action brought on 8 August 2012 — Vuitton Malletier v OHIM — Nanu-Nana (device of a checked pattern)

(Case T-359/12)

2012/C 311/18

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzaretti and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co.KG (Berlin, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 2012 in case R 1855/2011-1;

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

— Order Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co.KG to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the OHIM Cancellation Division and Boards of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark representing a device of a checked pattern for goods in class 18 — Community trade mark application No 370445

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal filed its request for declaration of invalidity against the CTM on the basis of absolute grounds, namely Article 52(1)(a) in connection with Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d), (e)(iii) and (f) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, and on absolute grounds under Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Upheld the request for invalidity in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/30

Action brought on 5 September 2012 — Lifted Research and LRG Europe/OHIM — Fei Liangchen (Lr geans)

(Case T-390/12)

2012/C 355/65

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Lifted Research Group, Inc (Irvine, United States) and LRG Europe Ltd (Hertfordshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fei Liangchen (Zhejiang, China)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 June 2012 in case R 1199/2010-2; and

— Order the defendant to pay to the applicants the applicants’ costs of and occasioned by this appeal; alternatively, if the other party to the proceedings intervenes, the defendant and the intervener are jointly and severally liable to pay to the applicants the applicants’ costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

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 ‘Lr geans’, for goods and services in classes 3, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 5572631

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2473627 for the word mark ‘LIFTED RESEARCH GROUP’, for goods in class 8; Community trade mark registration No 1591478 for the word mark ‘LIFTED RESEARCH GROUP’, for goods in class 25; Community trade mark registration No 4709325 for the word mark ‘L R G’, for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 16, 25, 28, 35, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 2473601 for the word mark ‘L R G’, for goods in class 18; Community trade mark registration No 1591452 for the word mark ‘L R G’, for goods in class 25; Community trade mark registration No 4708897 for the figurative mark representing a tree with a cross, for goods in classes 3, 9 and 25; Community trade mark registration No 4709218 of the figurative mark ‘L’, for goods in classes 9, 18 and 25; Community trade mark application No 4988127 of the figurative mark ‘L’, for goods and services in classes 3, 18, 25 and 35; Non-registered signs used in the course of trade in the European Union ‘LIFTED RESEARCH GROUP’, ‘LRG’, ‘L r geans’, ‘L’, ‘Lrg’, ‘Lr geans’, for goods in classes 3, 18 and 25.

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 Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/29

Action brought on 24 August 2012 — Ferienhäuser zum See v OHIM — Sunparks Groep (Sun Park Holidays)

(Case T-383/12)

2012/C 355/63

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ferienhäuser zum See GmbH (Marienmünster, Germany) (represented by: M. Boden and I. Höfener, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sunparks Groep NV (Den Haan, Belgium)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 June 2012 in case R 1928/2011-4;

— Annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 25 July 2011; and

— 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 ‘Sun Park Holidays Die wohl kinderfreundlichste Art Campingurlaub zu machen!’ in colours blue, yellow and black, for services in classes 39 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9078049

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 trade mark registration No 6852453 for the figurative mark in colours blue and green ‘Sunparks Holiday Parks’, for services in classes 39, 41 and 43; Benelux trade mark registration No 834301 of the word mark ‘SUNPARK’; Benelux trade mark registration No 853882 and International registration No 992185 for the figurative mark ‘SUNPARKS’

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) Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/36

Action brought on 21 September 2012 — Beninca v Commission

(Case T-418/12)

2012/C 366/74

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jürgen Beninca (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Zschocke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Commission’s decision of 26 July 2012, implicitly refusing access to a document produced in the framework of merger proceedings (Case COMP/M.6166 — NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse); and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has not rendered a decision on the applicant’s request to access to a certain document within the time limit foreseen by Article 8(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). Pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Regulation, this constitutes an implicit negative and unreasoned decision and thereby constitutes a violation of relevant provisions on access to documents.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that none of the arguments raised by the Commission, in its preliminary assessment, justify denying the applicant access to the requested document.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, p. 43)
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Toshiba’s rights of defence by not issuing a Statement of Objections before the adoption of the decision of 27 June 2012 in Case COMP/39.966 — Gas Insulated Switchgear — fines; and by not addressing in the Letter of Facts an important element of the fine calculation imposed by the said decision.