ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/43

Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Tilda Riceland Private v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASmALI)

(Case T-136/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark BASmALI - Earlier non-registered trade mark or earlier sign BASMATI - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 389/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tilda Riceland Private Ltd (Gurgaon, India) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, N. Urwin and D. Sills, Solicitors)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Siam Grains Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2013 (Case R 1086/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Tilda Riceland Private Ltd and Siam Grains Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 December 2013 (Case R 1086/2012-4);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tilda Riceland Private Ltd.

(1) OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/50

Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Sequoia Capital Operations LLC v OHIM — Sequoia Capital (SEQUOIA CAPITAL)

(Case T-369/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark SEQUOIA CAPITAL - Earlier Community word mark SEQUOIA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion))

(2015/C 389/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sequoia Capital Operations LLC (Menlo Park, California, United States) (represented by: F. Delord, A. Rendle, Solicitors, and G. Hollingworth, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sequoia Capital LLP (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2014 (Case R 1457/2013-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Sequoia Capital LLP and Sequoia Capital Operations LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sequoia Capital Operations LLC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/30

Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (ELITEPAD)

(Case T-470/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ELITEPAD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 406/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2014 (Case R 884/2013-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ELITEPAD as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Hewlett Packard Development Company LP to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/53

Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — CBM v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare (TRECOLORE)

(Case T-365/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark TRECOLORE - Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks FRECCE TRICOLORI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 398/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, M. Grundmann and N. Kerger, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (Rome, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 April 2014 (Case R 411/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore and CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/24

Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2015 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Joined Cases T-424/14 and T-425/14) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Draft impact assessment report, impact assessment report and opinion of the Impact Assessment Board - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Duty to state reasons - Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination - Overriding public interest))

(2016/C 007/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer, F. Heringa and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications for annulment of (i) the Commission’s decision of 1 April 2014 refusing to grant access to an Impact Assessment report for a proposed binding instrument setting a strategic framework for risk-based inspection and surveillance in relation to EU environmental legislation and an opinion of the Impact Assessment Board and (ii) the Commission’s decision of 3 April 2014 refusing to grant access to a draft Impact Assessment report relating to access to justice in environmental matters at Member State level in the field of EU environmental policy and an opinion of the Impact Assessment Board.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders ClientEarth to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 429/20

Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 –Giuntoli v OHIM — Société des produits Nestlé SA (CREMERIA TOSCANA)

(Case T-256/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark CREMERIA TOSCANA - Earlier international figurative mark la Cremeria - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 429/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Andrea Giuntoli (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and T. Bösling, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 February 2014 (Case R 886/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Société des produits Nestlé SA and Andrea Giuntoli.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Giuntoli to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/46

Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Établissement Amra v OHIM (KJ KANGOO JUMPS XR)

(Case T-390/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community trade mark KJ Kangoo Jumps XR - Absolute ground for refusal - Devoid of any distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 027/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Établissement Amra (Vaduz, Liechtenstein) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 March 2014 (Case R 1511/2013-2), concerning an application for registration of the ‘3D position mark’ KJ Kangoo Jumps XR as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Établissement Amra to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/31

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (JUICE masafi)

(Case T-248/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark JUICE masafi - Earlier national word mark masafi - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Masafi Co. LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hd1 Ltd (Huddersfield, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2014 (Case R 119/2013-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Hd1 Ltd and Masafi Co. LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Masafi Co. LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(1) OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/17

Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Bice International v OHIM — Bice (bice)

(Case T-624/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark bice - Ealier national figurative mark 1926 BiCE RISTORANTE - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 059/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bice International Ltd (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented initially by N. Gibb, Solicitor, and D. McFarland, Barrister, and subsequently by D. McFarland)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bice AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Pauli, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2014 (Case R 1249/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Bice International Ltd and Bice AG.

Operative part of the judgment

1) The action is dismissed.

2) Bice International Ltd shall bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/51

Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Infusion Brands v OHIM (DUALSAW)

(Case T-647/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark DUALSAW - Absolute grounds for refusal - Partial refusal of registration - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 027/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Infusion Brands, Inc. (Myerlake Circle Clearwater, Florida, United States) (represented by: K. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by V. Melgar, and subsequently by H. O’Neill and M. Rajh, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2014 (Case R 397/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign DUALSAW as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Infusion Brands, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/32

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-686/14) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetables - Tomato processing sector - Aid to producer organisations - Expenditure incurred by Italy - Proportionality - Res judicata))

(2016/C 106/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. Galluzzo, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/458 of 9 July 2014 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2014 L 205, p. 62), in so far as it concerns the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/39

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Bon Net v OHIM — Aldi (Bon Appétit!)

(Case T-485/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Bon Appétit! - Prior national figurative marks Бoн Апемú and Bon Apetí - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 098/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bon Net OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Hanne and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: L, Kolks, C. Fürsen, N. Lützenrath and U. Rademacher, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2014 (Case R 1199/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Bon Net OOD and Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bon Net OOD to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.

(1) OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/27

Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Vidmar and Others v Commission

(Case T-507/14) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Accession of Croatia to the European Union - Repeal before accession of national legislation establishing the profession of bailiff - Loss suffered by persons formerly appointed as bailiffs - Failure by the Commission to adopt measures to ensure fulfilment of accession commitments - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Article 36 of the Act of Accession))

(2016/C 118/29)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Applicants: Vedran Vidmar (Zagreb, Croatia) and the 21 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to this judgment (represented by: D. Graf, lawyer), and Darko Graf (Zagreb) (represented initially by D Graf and subsequently by L. Duvnjak, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Ječmenica and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for damages seeking compensation for the harm which the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of the wrongful conduct of the Commission while monitoring the fulfilment of accession commitments by the Republic of Croatia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Vedran Vidmar and Darko Graf and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to this judgment to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/25

Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Bodson and Others v EIB

(Case T-241/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Contractual nature of the employment relationship - Remuneration - Reform of the EIB rewards scheme - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion - Errors of law))

(2016/C 118/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Dalila Bundy (Cosnes-et-Romain, France), Didier Dulieu (Roussy-le-Village, France), Marie-Christel Heger (Nospelt, Luxembourg), Evangelos Kourgias (Senningerberg, Luxembourg), Manuel Sutil (Luxembourg), Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) and Henry von Blumenthal (Bergem, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (represented by: C. Gómez de la Cruz, T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2014 in Bodson and Others v EIB (F-83/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:15) seeking annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders Mr Bodson and the other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Gervais Danone v EUIPO — Mahou (B’lue)

(Case T-803/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark B’lue - Earlier EU word mark BLU DE SAN MIGUEL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 211/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie Gervais Danone (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Lakits-Josse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Intervener in the proceedings before the General Court, successor in law to San Miguel, Fabricas de Cerveza y Malta, SA, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mahou, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez-López, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2014 (Case R 1382/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between San Miguel, Fabricas de Cerveza y Malta, SA and Compagnie Gervais Danone.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Compagnie Gervais Danone to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/36

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission

(Case T-586/14) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Market Economy Treatment (MET) - Article 2(7)(b) and (c), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Significant distortion arising from the former non-market economy system - Tax incentives))

(2016/C 156/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd (Anhui, China) (represented by: Y. Melin and V. Akritidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2014 L 142, p. 1, with corrigendum in OJ 2014 L 253, p. 4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as it concerns Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/14

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Ivo-Kermartin v EUIPO — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe (ELGO)

(Case T-750/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ELGO - Earlier EU word and figurative marks ERGO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Successive restrictions on the application for registration - Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Rule 69 of Regulation No 2868/95))

(2016/C 232/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ivo-Kermartin GmbH (Walzenhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Henkel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2014 (Case R 473/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG and Ivo-Kermartin GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ivo-Kermartin GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/9

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — mobile.international v EUIPO — Rezon (mobile.de)

(Joined Cases T-322/14 and T-325/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word and figurative trade marks mobile.de - Earlier national figurative mark mobile - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15(1), Article 57(2) and Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 40(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2016/C 232/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: mobile.international GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: P. Kanchev and T. Ignatova, lawyers)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January (Case R 922/2013-1) and 13 February 2014 (Case R 951/2013-1) relating to two cancellation proceedings between mobile.international GmbH and Rezon OOD.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders mobile.international GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.