ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/31

Action brought on 31 January 2013 — Laboratoires Polive/OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (DODIE)

(Case T-77/13)

2013/C 108/78

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoires Polive (Levallois Perret, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arbora & Ausonia, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision rendered by the second Board of Appeal which has annulled the decision from the Opposition Division,

— Reject the opposition in its entirety, and

— Order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DODIE’, for goods in classes 3, 5 and 10 — Community trade mark application No 5 665 104

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 marks and national trade marks of figurative and word marks containing the word element ‘DODIS’, ‘DODIES’ or ‘DODOT’ for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 35, and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal partly and annulled the contested decision with respect to certain goods of classes 3, 5 and 10

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that, as regards the period covered by the Interim Measures Order, the application of the penalty interest rate of 4.5% breached the applicant’s legitimate expectations, as the Interim Measures Order of 2 March 2011 suspended the obligation on the applicant to provide a bank guarantee in order to avoid the immediate recovery of the fine imposed on it by Article 2 of Decision C(2009) 5791. This put the applicant in the same position it would have been in, had it provided the bank guarantee. The applicant was therefore entitled to rely on a legitimate expectation, created by the Commission’s letter of 24 July 2009 notifying Decision C(2009) 5791, that interest on the fine would be payable at the rate set down in Article 86(5) of the Implementing Rules.
—

It is submitted in this regard that an ‘international organisation’ for the purpose of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations has been defined with great precision by the case-law. Thus, in its judgment of 30 November 2006 in J v Commission (in particular paragraphs 42-43), the General Court of the European Union considered that, in order for an organisation to be classified as international for the purpose of the application of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, it is necessary for it to be formally identified and recognised as such by the other States or by other international organisations created by the States. In any event, for the purpose of determining whether an organisation is an international organisation, regard must be had only to its own composition, not whether it is a member of organisations with an international composition. In the light of those strict criteria, neither the EFSA nor the ETF may be regarded as international organisations within the meaning of Article 4.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/23

Action brought on 6 February 2013 — Reiner Appelrath-Cüpper/OHIM — Ann Christine Lizenzmanagement (AC)

(Case T-60/13)

2013/C 101/51

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Reiner Appelrath-Cüpper Nachf. GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Schumann and A. Berger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ann Christine Lizenzmanagement GmbH & Co. KG (Braunschweig, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Forth Board of Appeal of 28 November 2012 (R 108/2012-4) insofar as the appeal was upheld and the CTM applied for was rejected;

— Order the defendant to pay the cost of the proceedings;

— Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘AC’, for goods and services in classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 070 021

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: German trademarks No 30 666 076 and No 30 666 074 and International trade mark registration No 948 259 designating several Member States of the European Union of the figurative mark ‘AC ANNE CHRISTINE’, for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35; Community trade mark No 6 904 783, for goods in classes 3, 9, 14 and 25; Community trademark No 6 905 541 for goods in classes 3, 14 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal partly and annulled the contested decision with respect goods and services of classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35, rejected the CTM applied for these goods and services and rejected the appeal for the remainder

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 15 and 42(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
3.

Third plea in law alleging an error of law in that the CST based its decision on incorrect findings concerning, in particular, the powers of the assessors to evaluate the appellant solely on the basis of his work for the department to which he was assigned, and the fact that he relied on the half time discharge from the performance of his duties for trade union purposes in order to justify the fact that he did not work for the service to which he was assigned (paragraphs 59 and 60 of the order under appeal).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/19

Action brought on 20 February 2013 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (Camomilla)

(Case T-98/13)

2013/C 141/35

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Camomilla SpA (Buccinasco, 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 29 November 2012 in Case R 1615/2011 1 by finding that the absolute ground for invalidity under Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — based on the bad faith of the proprietor of the Community trade mark at the time when the application was filed — and the relative ground for invalidity under Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of the regulation, are made out;

— In the alternative, and only in the event that the Court should consider the documents produced at the time of the appeal before the Board of Appeal inadmissible and should consider those documents essential for the purposes of granting the appeal, annul the contested decision on the ground of failure to have regard to the right to be heard and infringement of the rights of the defence and refer the case back to the Cancellation Division for a decision on the substance;

— In any event, call upon OHIM to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the trade mark proprietor to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: figurative mark containing the word element ‘Camomilla’ for goods in Classes 16, 18 and 24 — Community trade mark No 269 241

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Camomilla SpA

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘CAMOMILLA’ for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Cancellation Division: application rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/22

Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Alpiq RomIndustries and Alpiq RomEnergie v Commission

(Case T-129/13)

2013/C 141/40

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Alpiq RomIndustries Srl (Bucharest, Romania) and Alpiq RomEnergie Srl (Bucharest) (represented by: H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision C(2012) 2542 final of 25 April 2012 (SA.33451; 2012/C; ex 2012/NN) pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, in so far as it concerns the applicants;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants submit, in essence, that the Commission lacks competence. In the applicants’ view, the alleged aid does not fall within the scope ratione temporis of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU. Under Annex V to Romania’s Act of Accession, the Commission is competent to examine aid measures put into effect prior to the date of Romania’s accession only if those measures are still applicable after that date. The applicants submit in that context, inter alia, that Hidroelectrica’s liabilities vis-à-vis the alleged recipients were already established so clearly in the power supply contracts concluded prior to accession that a subsequent expansion of Hidroelectrica’s supply obligation that might have resulted in additional advantages had to be ruled out.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/31

Action brought on 29 January 2013 — AbbVie v EMA

(Case T-44/13)

2013/C 79/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: AbbVie, Inc. (Wilmington, United States); and AbbVie Ltd (Maidenhead, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Bogaert, G. Berrisch, lawyers, and B. Kelly, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Decision of the European Medicines Agency EMA/748792/2012 of 14 January 2013 granting access to documents from the marketing authorisation dossier of a medicinal product; and

— Order the European Medicines Agency to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation (1) and the applicants’ fundamental rights to the protection of confidential commercial information.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates Article 4(4) of the Transparency Regulation and the principle of good administration.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates the obligation to state reasons as regards the application of Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates the principle of legitimate expectations

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates Directive 2001/29/EC (2), the fundamental rights protecting property rights, including copyright and the principle of proportionality and good administration, insofar as the access is granted by providing a copy of the documents.

(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 2001 L 145, p. 43)

(2) Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/25

Action brought on 11 January 2013 — Ekologický právní servis v Commission

(Case T-19/13)

2013/C 79/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ekologický právní servis (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Černý, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the European Commission C(2012) 8382, of 12 November 2012, by which a request for internal review of the applicant of the Commission decision C(2012) 4576, of 6 July 2012, concerning the application pursuant to Article 10(c) (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) to give transitional free allocation for the modernisation of electricity generation notified by the Czech Republic has been declared inadmissible;

— Annul the Commission decision C(2012) 4576, of 6 July 2012, concerning the application pursuant to Article 10(c) (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to give transitional free allocation for the modernisation of electricity generation notified by the Czech Republic; and

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

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 Decision of the European Commission C(2012) 8382, of 12 November 2012, is unlawful, as it is contrary to Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union; Article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union; and Article 2(1)(g) and Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No. 1367/2006 (2).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission decision C(2012) 4576, of 6 July 2012, is unlawful, as it is contrary to Article 263 TFEU; Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC (3); Communication from the Commission — Guidance document on the optional application of Article 10 (c) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2011/C 99/03); and Directive 2001/42/EC (4) on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.

(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC

(2) 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

(3) Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community

(4) Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/28

Action brought on 11 January 2013 — Łaszkiewicz v OHIM — CABLES Y ESLINGAS (PROTEKT)

(Case T-18/13)

2013/C 108/73

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Grzegorz Łaszkiewicz (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, legal adviser)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CABLES Y ESLINGAS, S.A. (Cerdanyola del Valles, Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside in its entirety the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October 2012 in Case R 701/2011-4;

— deliver final judgment — if the state of the proceedings so allows — by allowing registration of the Community trade mark applied for (Registration No 8478331);

— if necessary — should the state of the proceedings so allow — refer the case back for reconsideration by the Fourth Board of Appeal, in accordance with the binding criteria laid down by the Court of Justice;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in his action before the Board of Appeal and before the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

— examine the evidence indicated in the content of the application;

— conduct the written procedure, with Polish as the language of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘protekt’ for goods in Classes 6, 7, 9, 22 and 25 — Registration No 008478331

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: CABLES Y ESLINGAS, S.A.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark PROTEK, registered in Spain for goods in Classes 6 and 9

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

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

— Breach of the principle of legality, including breach of Article 3(1)(a) to (d) of Directive 2008/95;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/51

Action brought on 8 April 2013 — DTM Ricambi v OHIM — Star (STAR)

(Case T-199/13)

2013/C 156/94

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: DTM Ricambi Srl (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: V. Catelli, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Star SpA (Lodi, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 24 January 2013 in Case R 124/2012-1 and grant registration of the Community mark ‘STAR’, filed with No 5878038, in Classes 7, 9 and 12;

— order Star to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant, including those relating to the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘STAR’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 12

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘STAR’ for goods in Class 39, national and international figurative marks containing the word elements ‘STAR LODI’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 38, 39 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— No likelihood of confusion
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/20

Action brought on 21 February 2013 — Laboratoires Polive/OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (dodie)

(Case T-123/13)

2013/C 123/34

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoires Polive (Levallois Perret, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arbora & Ausonia, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision rendered by the second Board of Appeal on 28 November 2012;

— Order the 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 ‘dodie’, for goods in classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 037 821

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: Spanish and Portuguese trade marks of the word mark ‘DODOT’ for goods in classes 3, 5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, upheld the opposition and rejected the trade mark applied for in relation to certain goods in classes 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/37

Appeal brought on 14 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 February 2013 in Case F-113/11, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-229/13 P)

2013/C 171/70

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Annul the order under appeal in its entirety and without exception;

— Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-203/13 P Marcuccio v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/47

Action brought on 26 March 2013 — CWP v OHIM — Continental Reifen Deutschland (CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS)

(Case T-185/13)

2013/C 156/88

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: CWP LLC (Wilmington, United States of America) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH (Hanover, Germany)

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 10 January 2013 in Case R 2204/2011-2;

— 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: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 11, 35, 36, 37, 39 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 8 445 561

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international registration designating the European Union of the figurative mark including the word element ‘Continental’

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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

annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste in so far as it adds hollow tubes, except those intended for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;