ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/40

Action brought on 25 May 2014 — Sina Bank v Council

(Case T-418/14)

2014/C 282/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sina Bank (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council’s decision after review contained in the Notice of 15 March 2014 for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ C 77, p. 1), which states that Council decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 continue to affect directly the applicant;

— Annul annex IX Point I.B.8 to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 as it continues to affect directly the applicant as stated in the Notice of 15 March 2014;

— Order the Council to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant.

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 Council decision after review contained in the Notice of 15 March 2014 has breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons and to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Bank is not linked to the interest of the ‘Daftar’ and does not contribute to the financing of the state’s so called strategic interests nor its nuclear program. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under the challenged acts are not met in respect of the Bank and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. The Council also failed to apply the correct test.

(1) Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ L 195, p. 39)

(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ L 88, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/50

Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Mdr Inversiones v Commission

(Case T-488/14)

2014/C 282/65

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Mdr Inversiones, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Linares Gil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— 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, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

— in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in clear breach of the principle of legal certainty; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

The applicant alleges, in particular, that the Commission erred in characterising as State aid the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as a whole, as well as the individual measures; that it erred in its identification of the beneficiary of the measures; and that it acted in breach of the principle of legal certainty.
1.

The first plea in law is based on the infringement by the defendant of Articles 107(1) and 296 TFEU since: (a) the aid measures 2, 3, 4 and 6 cannot be categorised as State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU and (b) even if some of the aid measures 2, 3, 4 and 6 could be categorised as constituting State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, that aid is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3) TFEU.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/33

Action brought on 11 June 2014 — Viscas v Commission

(Case T-422/14)

2014/C 303/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viscas Corporation (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as it finds an infringement covering the period 1 October 2001 through 28 January 2009;

— annul or reduce the amount of the fine imposed; and

— order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 — Power Cables.

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

1. First and second pleas in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that the applicant was part of the infringement covering the period 1 October 2001 through 28 January 2009.

2. Third and fourth pleas in law, alleging that Commission’s application of Point 18 of the Fining Guidelines (1) violates the principles of proportionality and equal protection because i) it disproportionately benefits European producers of power cables and ii) it fails to recognize significant differences in the weight in the infringement for different producers.

3. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by allocating sales by the applicant’s shareholders to the applicant for purposes of determining the fine to be imposed.

4. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly increased the proportion of the value of sales to be taken into account based on the combined market share of the parties.

5. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by failing to apply a reduction for mitigating circumstances.

6. Eighth plea in law by which the applicant calls on the Court to rely on its unlimited jurisdiction and significantly reduce the fine.

(1) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/49

Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Warimex v OHIM (STONE)

(Case T-454/14)

2014/C 292/60

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Warimex Waren-Import-Export Handels GmbH (Neuried, Germany) (represented by E. Keller and J. Voogd, lawyers)

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 27 March 2014 in Case R 1599/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘STONE’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 21, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 4 64 005

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/65

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

(Case T-395/14)

2014/C 315/109

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

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

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

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 March 2014 in Case R 1695/2013-4 and declare Community trade mark No 50 518 invalid in respect of Class 28;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the three-dimensional mark in the shape of a toy figure for goods in Classes 9, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark No 50 518

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

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: absolute grounds for invalidity and bad faith

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(e)(i) and (ii) and 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/42

Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság v European Parliament

(Case T-453/14)

2014/C 303/50

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság (Pannonhalma, Hungary) (represented by: D. Sobor, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Annul decision MS/sd(IPOL-COM-PETI D (2014) 14486) of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament of 16 April 2014 to file without further action the petition presented in the Lónyay Mansion in Rusovce (Slovakia) case;

— Order the European Parliament to examine the petition and take all the measures required by law;

— Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant argues that the Petitions Committee infringed procedural rules in that no reasons were stated for the contested decision.

In that regard, the applicant points out that, pursuant to Rule [215](8) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, petitions declared inadmissible by the committee are to be filed and the petitioner informed of the decision and the reasons for it. The applicant also states that, in breach of that Rule, the defendant gave no reasons for its view that the subject matter of the petition had no connection with the European Union's fields of activity. The applicant also cites the judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2011 in Case T-308/07 Tegebauer v Parliament [2011] ECR II-279.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 339/27

Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Industrias Tomás Morcillo v OHIM — Aucar Trailer (Polycart A Whole Cart Full of Benefits)

(Case T-613/14)

2014/C 339/33

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Industrias Tomás Morcillo, SL (Albuixech, Spain) (represented by: A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aucar Trailer, SL (Premia de Mar, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General 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 7 May 2014 in Case R 1735/2012-1 and, accordingly, dismiss the opposition brought by Aucar Trailer S.L., allowing the grant of Community trade mark No 9 6 90 314‘Polycart A Whole Cart Full of Benefits’ in respect of the goods applied for pursuant to the limitation of 16 November 2012, and dismissing the opposition brought against the same;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with word elements ‘Polycart A Whole Cart Full of Benefits’ for goods in Classes 12, 17 and 20 — Community trade mark application No 9 6 90 314

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: Figurative mark with word element ‘POLICAR’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 35 and 37

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 329/23

Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Klass v OHIM — F. Smit (PLAYSEAT) (PLAYSEATS)

(Case T-540/14)

2014/C 329/32

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Oliver Klass (Remscheid, Germany) (represented by: U. Bender, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: F. Smit Holding BV (Doetinchem, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Alter the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2014 in Cases R 1616/2013-4 and R 1834/2013-4 to the effect that both of the applications for a declaration of invalidity of 31 July 2012 are granted;

— Order the defendant and the other party to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word marks ‘PLAYSEAT’ and ‘PLAYSEATS’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade marks No 7 5 95 184 and No 8 8 42 254

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: F. Smit Holding BV

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the absolute grounds for invalidity in Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) thereof

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the applications for a declaration of invalidity were rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeals were dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) thereof
—

Annul the decision of 26 June 2014: — Principally, on the basis of the formal irregularity involving the lack of the President’s signature; — In the alternative, on the basis of infringement of the rights of the defence in that the decision of 17 July 1996 serving as the basis of the decision of 26 June 2014 was not published; — In the further alternative, on the basis of infringement of the adversarial principle; — In the further alternative, on the basis of the insufficient statement of reasons of the decision of 26 June 2014; — In the further alternative, on the basis of infringement of the reasonable time principle affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence; — In the further alternative, on the basis of infringement of the principle of acquired right;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/24

Action brought on 8 August 2014 — BSH v OHIM (PerfectRoast)

(Case T-591/14)

2014/C 351/30

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by S. Biagosch, 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 Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 June 2014 in Case R 359/2014-5;

— order OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘PerfectRoast’ for goods in Classes 7 and 11 — Community trade mark registration No 1 2 1 73 902

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/26

Action brought on 21 August 2014 — Jaguar Land Rover v OHIM (Shape of a car)

(Case T-629/14)

2014/C 361/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jaguar Land Rover Ltd (Coventry, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Delord and R. Grewal, Solicitors)

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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 April 2014 given in Case R 1622/2013-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The 3D mark representing a shape of a car for goods in Classes 12, 14 and 28 — Community trade mark application No. 1 1 3 88 411

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application in part

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

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/15

Action brought on 22 July 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)

(Case T-552/14)

2014/C 351/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

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 Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 199/2014-5.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Extra’ for goods in Classes 3, 21 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 37 582

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/22

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Drex Technologies v Council

(Case T-605/14)

2014/C 361/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d’Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare its action to be both admissible and well founded;

— consequently, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and the subsequent measures implementing it in so far as they concern the applicant;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1) OJ C 290, p. 13.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/18

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

(Case T-596/14)

2014/C 361/26

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

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

— In consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing acts in so far as they concern the applicant;

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council (1).

(1) OJ C 290, p. 13.
—

failure to take into account the Form C signed by the beneficiary, although the Commission had requested that this be submitted, and failure to take account of evidence in the form of a declaration of an employee that it was not possible to obtain the documents from the coordinator of the consortium.
—

alter the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of 23 May 2014 and of the Examiner of 23 May 2013, in accordance with Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009, for infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009, acknowledging the distinctive character of the figurative mark applied for in application No 1 1 7 64 354 and, therefore, the inapplicability of the absolute ground for refusal of registration laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, and ordering the publication of that trade mark application so that, once the remaining procedures have been dealt with, the application may be granted;
—

in the alternative, in the unlikely event that the Court decides that only some of the complaints raised in the present action should be upheld, annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns those complaints;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 448/26

Action brought on 7 July 2014 — Pelikan v OHIM — Hachette Filipacchi Presse (be.bag)

(Case T-517/14)

(2014/C 448/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hachette Filipacchi Presse SA (Levallois Perret, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: The word mark ‘be.bag’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1192/2013-1

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2014 in Case R 1192/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in part;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
First plea in law, alleging an abnormally low offer submitted by the undertaking which was awarded the contract

The applicant claims that the Commission failed to carry out a thorough investigation of the, according to the applicant, abnormally low offer submitted by the undertaking which was awarded the contract, and failed to exclude that offer or the tenderer from the tender procedure. The Commission thereby failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 110(2) of Regulation No 966/2012 (1) in conjunction with Article 151 of Regulation No 1268/2012 (2) and infringed its obligation under Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to ensure good administration.
—

annul replacement Article 5 provided for by Council Regulation No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant and declare that the restrictive measures imposed by that provision do not apply to it;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested decision, EFSA acted in breach of Article 4(4) of the United Nations Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of 25 June 1998 (‘Aarhus Convention’) as approved by the Council Decision 2005/370/EC, of 17 February 2005, as well as in breach of Article 6(1) of 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 to Community institutions and bodies (‘the Aarhus Regulation’) and of Article 4(2) of Regulation No (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. In breach of these provisions EFSA did not recognise in the contested Decision the obligation to disclose information relating to emissions into the environment contained in the documents requested.