ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/22

Action brought on 17 April 2014 — Meica v OHIM — Salumificio Fratelli Beretta (MINIMINI)

(Case T-247/14)

2014/C 235/30

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (Edewecht, Germany) (represented by: S. Labesius, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA (Barzanò, Italy)

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 14 February 2014 given in Case R 1159/2013-4;

— 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 figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘STICK MINIMINI Fratelli Beretta 1812 GLI ORIGINALI’ for goods and services in Classes 29 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 0 67 031

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘Mini Wini’ for goods and services in Classes 29 and 38 — Community trade mark registration No 3 2 97 835

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/24

Action brought on 23 April 2014 — Aalto-korkeakoulusäätiö v OHIM (APPCAMPUS)

(Case T-255/14)

2014/C 235/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aalto-korkeakoulusäätiö (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: C. Tomás Pedro, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Partially annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 January 2014 given in Case R 713/2013-2 in the part that it confirmed the decision of rejection of protection in the European Union to the International Registration 1 1 34 485‘APPCAMPUS’ (word) regarding computer software, magnetic data carriers, recording discs, compact discs, DVD’s and other digital recording media in class 9 and technological services and research and design relating thereto, design and development of computer software in class 42;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: International Registration designating the European Union No 1 1 34 485 of the word mark ‘APPCAMPUS’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42

Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark applied for partially not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c), (b) and 7(2) of the Regulation No 207/2009
1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 110 of the Financial Regulation (1), of the rules laid down in the specifications for the award of the contract, in particular points 4.1 and 12.1 of the instructions to tenderers, and of the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and non-discrimination, in so far as the EUBAM did not check the abilities of the successful tenderer to perform the contract in accordance with the requirements of the contract or failed to exercise its discretion as regards the expected technical qualities of the successful tender with the minimum rigour reasonably to be expected. The applicant submits that the serious failings by the successful tenderer and its inability to carry out the contract awarded to it show that the tender was unrealistic and ought not to have been accepted by the adjudicating authority.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/21

Action brought on 28 April 2014 — Cyprus v OHIM (XAΛΛOYMI)

(Case T-292/14)

2014/C 245/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 February 2014 given in Case R 1849/2013-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘XAΛΛOYMI’ for goods in Class 29 — Community trade mark application No 11 578 473

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/59

Action brought on 9 June 2014 — Tose’e Ta’avon Bank v Council

(Case T-435/14)

2014/C 253/80

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Tose’e Ta’avon Bank (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Council’s decision to maintain the sanction imposed on the applicant as mentioned in the notice of 15 March 2014;

— declare that Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 is inapplicable to it;

— declare that Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 is inapplicable to it;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea, alleging an error of law, in so far as the reason given for the maintenance of restrictive measures against the applicant is not among those which would allow the defendant to adopt restrictive measures.

2. Second plea, alleging an error of fact constituting a manifest error of assessment, in so far as the applicant is not managed by the Iranian state and does not provide financial support for the Iranian government.

3. Third plea, alleging failure to state reasons.

4. Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and the right to property.

5. Fifth plea, alleging illegality of Regulation No 267/2012 (1) and Decision 2010/413 (2), pursuant to which the contested decision was taken in so far as, on the one hand, they were taken in violation of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU and in breach of Article 215 TFEU and, on the other hand, their relevant provisions on the basis of which the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant were maintained violate the treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

(2) 2010/413/CFSP: Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/42

Action brought on 23 May 2014 — CareAbout v OHIM — Florido Rodríquez (Kerashot)

(Case T-356/14)

2014/C 253/56

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CareAbout GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M. Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Luis Florido Rodríquez (Sevilla, Spain)

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 24 March 2014 in Case R 1569/2013-4 regarding 1., 2. and 4;

— order OHIM to bear the costs of the proceeding before the Court including the costs of the opposition proceeding

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark Kerashot for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 21 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 69 571

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: José Luis Florido Rodríquez

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark containing the word elements ‘K KERASOL’ for goods in Class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was partially annulled and the opposition partially upheld

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

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/44

Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Hoteles Catalonia v OHIM — Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya (HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA)

(Case T-358/14)

2014/C 253/58

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hoteles Catalonia, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, A. Torrente Tomás and Y. Sastre Canet, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 February 2014 in Case R 1227/2013-1 rejecting Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 63 814‘HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA’ by HOTELES CATALONIA S.A., which will consequently have to be registered by OHIM;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Hoteles Catalonia, SA

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA’ for services in Class 43 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 63 814

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word marks ‘LA PEDRERA’ for services in class 42

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 261/39

Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)

(Case T-400/14)

2014/C 261/65

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Premo, SL (Campanillas, Spain) (represented by: E. Cornu, F. de Visscher and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prema Semiconductor GmbH (Mainz, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 April 2014 in Case R 1000/2013-5;

— Subsidiarily, annul the contested decision to the extent that it upheld the opposition regarding ‘inductors’, ‘transformers’ and ‘noise filters’;

— Order OHIM, and if appropriate the intervening party, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The international registration designating the European Union for the figurative mark containing the word element ‘PREMO’, for goods in Class 9 — International registration designating the European Union No 973 341

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘PREMA’ for goods in Class 9

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was partially dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Rule 22(6) of Commission Regulation No. 2868/95 and the rights of defence of the applicant;

— Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/24

Action brought on 7 May 2014 — Klement/OHIM — Bullerjan (Form of an oven)

(Case T-317/14)

2014/C 261/47

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Toni Klement (Dippoldiswalde, Germany) (represented by: J. Weiser, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bullerjan GmbH (Isernhagen-Kirchhorst, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 27 February 2014 in Case R 1656/2013-1 so that the appeal brought by the applicant is upheld and Community trade mark 4 0 87 731 is revoked in its entirety;

— Alternatively, annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM and, as the case may be, the Community trade mark proprietor/possible intervener to pay the costs for these proceedings and of the proceedings before OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Three-dimensional mark representing an oven, for goods in Class 11 — Community trade mark registration No 4 0 87 731

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Bullerjan GmbH

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for revocation

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009
—

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

in the alternative, if the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (STLS) is held to be unlawful State aid, order recovery only until the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision initiating the formal investigation, namely, 21 September 2011; and
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and of the right to effective judicial protection as the applicant was unaware of the investigation against him, on the basis of which he was included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to the contested restrictive measures, and was provided with no details of it by either the Council or the Ukrainian authorities. The applicant further alleges that he was not provided with the grounds for listing nor therefore given an opportunity to submit observations.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that in removing certain data in the course of the unannounced inspection at the premises of Nexans France, the Commission acted beyond the powers conferred on it by Regulation 1/2003 and breached the applicants’ right to privacy.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council had no power to include the applicant on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures, since the applicant’s name is not mentioned in the United Nations Security Council resolutions 1970 (2011) and 1973 (2011).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/54

Action brought on 1 July 2014 — Seven for all mankind v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND)

(Case T-505/14)

2014/C 292/66

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Seven for all mankind LLC (Vernon, United States) (represented by: A. Gautier-Sauvagnac, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy)

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 9 April 2014 given in Case R 1277/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND’ for goods in Classes 14 and 18 — Community trade mark application No 4 4 43 222

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 Community trademarks containing the verbal element ‘Seven’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Accepted the appeal in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
—

order that Community trade mark application No 1 1 6 24 483 (also) for the following services be allowed to proceed to registration: — 35: News clipping services; Dissemination of advertisements; Direct mail advertising; — 41: Publication of books; General public information work on the subject of ‘dying’ by events such as seminars, speaking tours and other training courses; Publication and editing of printed material on the subject of ‘dying’; — 44: Advisory services relating to pharmaceutics; Medical assistance; Advisory services relating to health; Nursing care; Therapy services; Services of a psychologist; — 45: Personal and social services, provided by third parties, regarding individual needs, namely family support, clinic support, disabled support, assisted dying, end-of-life care, end-of-life care through counselling; comfort and assistance for those affected and helpers, general life counselling with particular regard to the subject of ‘dying’, day-services, night watches, around the clock care, Sunday and public holiday services, advisory services nationwide, nursing services nationwide;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/33

Action brought on 11 June 2014 — Wine in Black v OHIM — Quinta do Noval — Vinhos (Wine in Black)

(Case T-420/14)

2014/C 303/41

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Wine in Black GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Bauer and V. Ahmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Quinta do Noval — Vinhos, SA (Pinhão, Portugal)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Fully set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 in Case R 1601/2013-1;

— Award the costs of the proceedings against the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Wine in Black’ for goods and services in classes 33, 35 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 9 49 071

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Quinta do Noval — Vinhos, SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘NOVAL BLACK’ for goods in class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Violation of Art. 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 329/20

Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Deutsche Umwelthilfe v Commission

(Case T-498/14)

2014/C 329/28

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV (Radolfzell, Germany) (represented by: R. Klinger and R. Geulen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following pleas in support of its action.

Right of access to the written correspondence between the European Commission and the undertakings Honeywell and DuPont and automobile manufacturers regarding the new refrigerant R1234yf

— The applicant submits that the Commission failed to recognise the applicant’s right of access under the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1). According to that provision, documents of the institutions must always be made accessible if they relate to emissions into the environment. The first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 contains a statutory presumption that the interest in disclosure of the information takes precedence over the interest of undertakings in ensuring their protection.

— The applicant further submits that the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 constitutes an explicit rule for the interpretation of the first and second indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2). The first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006, it argues, modifies what is stated in Regulation No 1049/2001 as soon as documents relate to emissions into the environment. The applicant submits that the documents withheld presumably contain information on the refrigerants R1234yf and R134a, which are harmful to health and to the climate, and that the quantities of poisonous hydrogen fluoride emissions can be deduced from the declarations, assessments and proposals of automobile manufacturers and refrigerant producers with regard to the use of those chemicals.

— In the alternative, the applicant submits that access to the requested documents must itself be granted on the basis of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The condition governing the exception set out in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is, it argues, not satisfied. In addition, there is an overriding interest in access to the documents because the health risks linked to use of the refrigerant are significant.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

(2) 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 2001 L 145, p. 43).