ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/41

Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Apcoa Parking Holdings v OHIM (PARKWAY)

(Case T-268/15)

(2015/C 245/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: A. Lohmann, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘PARKWAY’ — Application No 12 567 021

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 March 2015 in Case R 2063/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 228/16

Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

(Case T-106/15)

(2015/C 228/19)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Opko Ireland Global Holdings Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Smith, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ALPHAREN’ — Application for registration No 4 320 297

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2014 in Case R 2387/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Regulation No 216/96 in that a member of the Board who took the original 2009 Board of Appeal decision was also a member of the Board that took the contested decision;

— Infringement of Article 50 of the Implementing Regulation by relying upon new evidence not before OHIM at the first hearing of the opposition;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by failing to impose the burden of proof in the opposition to prove the similarity of the goods in issue upon the opponent;
The applicant puts forward that the Express Decision should be annulled on the grounds that it breached its duty to state reasons insofar: (i) it only presented generic considerations regarding the invoked exceptions listed in Article 4 of the Decision ECB/2004/3; (ii) it failed to provide any particular reasons to refuse access to specific information requested by the applicant; (iii) it failed to state the reasons for not disclosing the information on the basis of Article 4(1)(a) seventh indent of the Decision ECB/2004/3; (iv) it failed to state the reasons for not disclosing the information on the basis of Article 4(2) first indent of the Decision ECB/2004/3; (v) it failed to state the reasons for not disclosing the information on the basis of Article 4(3) of the Decision ECB/2004/3.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/33

Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Speciality Drinks v OHIM — William Grant (CLAN)

(Case T-250/15)

(2015/C 245/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Speciality Drinks Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Pritchard, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: William Grant & Sons Ltd (Dufftown, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘CLAN’ — Application for registration No 10 025 815

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 in Case R 220/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and dismiss the opposition;

— order that a costs award be made in the favour of the applicant and/or that the costs order of the First Board of Appeal be reversed.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal erred in its characterisation of the level of attention of the ‘relevant consumer’ within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— The Board of Appeal failed to decide whether CLAN, when used in conjunction with MACGREGOR, was a fancy (i.e. meaningless) word to the relevant consumer or, in the alternative, was a word with a meaning they understood;

— The Board of Appeal did not assess the similarity of marks on the correct legal and/or factual basis;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/35

Action brought on 12 June 2015 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-313/15)

(2015/C 262/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the notice of Competition EPSO/AD/301/15 — Administrators (AD 5);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-17/15 Italy v Commission (OJ 2015 C 81, p. 27).
—

order the EBA to compensate the applicants for the loss of the opportunity to be ranked in first place in Lot 1 of the EBA/2014/06/OPS/SER/RT framework agreement, which the applicants estimate ex aequo et bono at three hundred thousand euros (EUR 3 00 000), with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment or such other sum as the General Court deems appropriate; and
Case T-280/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads)

Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads)

(Case T-280/15)

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Design at issue: Community design (Tyre treads) — Community design No 4 692-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2015 in Case R 1286/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant the application for restitutio in integrum made by Pirelli Tyre SpA in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs, by declaring that the payment of the renewal fee relating to the second five-year period by way of a withdrawal from current account No 000069 under the name of Bugnion SpA is lawful and that, therefore, the right to the design at issue is still valid;

— order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in the present proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/38

Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

(Case T-274/15)

(2015/C 279/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium); and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, J. Dewispelaere and J. Probst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decisions;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that, by adopting and implementing the contested decisions, the Commission infringed the applicants’ rights of defence and their right to the inviolability of private premises and that it breached the principles of sound administration and proportionality.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/48

Action brought on 27 June 2015 — Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen v OHIM (Shape of a service station)

(Case T-343/15)

(2015/C 279/61)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (Płock, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of a service station) — Application No 12 416 954

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2015 in Case R 2250/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and before the Court.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that there is an absence of legal basis for restrictive measures against the applicants and/or a manifest error of assessment, on the basis that there is no rational connection between the applicants and the persons or entities sought to be targeted by the restrictive measures adopted by the Union, namely those who are benefiting from or supporting the Syrian regime.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principles of equal treatment, sound administration and legitimate expectations as codified by Council Regulation No 1605/2002 (‘the Financial Regulation’) and the Practical Guide to contract procedures for EU external actions (‘PRAG’) by failing to adequately supervise the tender procedure and promptly investigate and provide full and complete information on the investigation of the complaint lodged by Vakakis;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/59

Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Hot-Can Intellectual Property (HotoGo self-heating can technology)

(Case T-407/15)

(2015/C 311/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hot-Can Intellectual Property Sdn Bhd (Cheras, Malaysia)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘HotoGo self-heating can technology’ — Application for registration No 11 418 101

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2015 in Case R 1028/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 February 2014 in Opposition No B2178567;

— reject the opposed mark in its entirety;

— order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding that the continued operation of NCHZ under the decision of the creditors’ committee did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU — The Commission erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in finding that no advantage was conferred onto Novácke chemické závody, a.s. v konkurze (NCHZ) while its operations were maintained after the decision of the creditors’ committee and the secured creditors. The Commission also erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the decision of the creditors’ committee and the secured creditors to continue the operations of NCHZ is not imputable to the State.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/48

Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Vitra Collections v OHIM — Consorzio Origini (Shape of a chair)

(Case T-455/15)

(2015/C 320/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Vitra Collections AG (Muttenz, Switzerland) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consorzio Origini (Florence, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community tridimensional mark (Shape of a chair) — Community trade mark No 182 451

Procedure before OHIM: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2015 in Case R 664/2011-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

The applicant puts forward that the contested decision has been adopted in breach of the EU legal principles of the right to be heard, the right to respond and to reply, the right of defence, the right to notice, and the right to good administration. The applicant submits that as a direct consequence of the breach of these procedural and process rights, the contested decision is voidable and void. That is: ECHA had not acted in breach of the applicant’s procedural and process rights, the applicant submits that the outcome of the process and the procedure would have materially differed.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20 of Directive 2006/42/EC, which states that any restrictive measure taken pursuant to that directive must ‘state the exact grounds on which it is based’ and ‘be notified as soon as possible to the party concerned, who shall at the same time be informed of the legal remedies available to him under the laws in force in the Member State concerned and of the time limits to which such remedies are subject’. — In that regard, the applicant complains that, since it was never notified of the restrictive measure adopted against it by the Latvian authorities, the contested decision regarded as justified a measure seriously prejudicial to its rights of the defence, as it was adopted at the end of a procedure which was not properly carried out and which was vitiated by serious irregularities, in particular formal ones.
1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons, in so far as the defendant merely justified the annulment decisions of 29 May 2015 and 11 June 2015 on the ground that the other offers received, including the applicants’, significantly exceeded the estimate of the market value previously used as a basis by the contracting authority, without specifying that value in those decisions. The defendant indicated that estimated amount only in a later letter of 18 June 2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/38

Action brought on 20 August 2015 — Lotte v OHIM — Kuchenmeister (KOALA LAND)

(Case T-479/15)

(2015/C 337/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Lotte Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Knitter and S. Schicker, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kuchenmeister GmbH (Soest, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘KOALA LAND’ — Application for registration No 10 766 723

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2015 in Case R 815/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, notified to the applicant on 23 June 2015, concerning the application for registration of Community trademark No 10 766 723 ‘KOALA LAND’;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Rule 22(3) of Regulation No 2868/95;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/24

Action brought on 13 July 2015 — EDF Luminus v Parliament

(Case T-384/15)

(2015/C 337/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: EDF Luminus (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Verhoeven and O. Vanden Berghe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Declare the action admissible and well founded;

— Consequently, order the European Parliament:

— to pay EDF Luminus the sum of EUR 4 39 672 ,95;

— to pay EDF Luminus the contractual interest on that sum from the date on which the invoices were payable;

— to pay the costs and disbursements.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicable legal and contractual conditions and the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, since the Parliament refuses to reimburse the applicant for the contributions relating to the electricity which it paid to the Région de Bruxelles — Capitale. The applicant submits that the disputed contributions must fall to be paid by the Parliament since they were brought about by the supply of electricity to the Parliament.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of EU law and in particular of the case-law concerning Article 34 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of the duty of care, as the CST found that the probationary period and the appraisal had taken place under normal conditions, although the applicant had been supervised and evaluated by external consultants and did not have the benefit of mentoring.
1.

The imposition of a flat-rate correction in the amount of EUR 609 337,80 and the method of calculation used, were contrary to Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy, the guidelines set out in Commission document No VI/5330/97 of 23 December 1997 (Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of the accounts of the EAGFF Guarantee section) and to the document AGRI-64043-2005 (Commission Communication on how the Commission intends in the context of the EAGGF-Guarantee clearance procedure to handle shortcomings in the context of cross-compliance control systems implemented by Member States) in so far as it is inappropriate to apply a flat-rate assessment, since the Kingdom of Spain had provided a specific evaluation of the actual risks for the fund. The implementing measure adopted by the Commission was not only incorrect, but also disproportionate and unjustified.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/38

Action brought on 16 September 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (Viewty GT)

(Case T-534/15)

(2015/C 371/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Viewty GT’ — Community trade mark application No 9 017 237

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 June 2015 in Joined Cases R 1937/2014-2 and R 1564/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

declare unlawful, on the grounds of unequal treatment between Member States and/or Regions of the Member States and also lack of valid conditions, the procedure EU PILOT 6955/14/ENVI brought by the European Commission exclusively against the Italian State since it did not bring an identical and concurrent action against France and did not carry out any preliminary investigation aimed at acquiring congruent elements from which it can concluded that the effective beginning of the pre-mating migration of woodcocks, song thrushes and fieldfares is to be deferred by one month (20 February) in Corsica and the South of France compared to the beginning of the same pre-mating migration in Liguria (20 January);
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the third indent of Art. 4(2) of regulation (EC) no 1049/2001 (1) by refusing access to the detailed opinion of the Commission — The third indent of Art. 4(2) of regulation 1049/2001 cannot reasonably be construed as meaning that a document in the Commission’s possession cannot be disclosed if this could undermine the purpose of any inspection, investigation or audit, even if the document was not drafted in the framework, or for the purposes, of such an inspection, investigation or audit. — No general presumption that disclosing a document would undermine the protection of the purpose of infringement proceedings can be applicable to a document produced in the framework of a notification procedure, given that no such general presumption exists with respect to such a procedure. — The Commission’s claim that its opinion concerns a measure intended to remedy an infringement of EU law and that it includes references to the Commission’s letter of formal notice initiating infringement proceedings and an appraisal of the notified measure in light of those proceedings, does not demonstrate the existence of any general presumption that the detailed opinion should not be disclosed. — The Commission’s position is inconsistent insofar as it bases its decision on a general presumption, but at the same time relies on the specifics of ‘this particular case’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/67

Action brought on 28 September 2015 — Excalibur City v OHIM — Ferrero (MERLIN'S KINDERWELT)

(Case T-566/15)

(2015/C 398/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Excalibur City s.r.o. (Znojmo, Czech Republic) (represented by:E. EnginDeniz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferrero SpA (Alba, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MERLIN’S KINDERWELT’– Application for registration No 1 1 2 02 066

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2015 in Case R 1617/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision so as to reject the opposition of the Opponent; in eventu

— annul the contested decision as well as the decision of the Opposition Division of 26 May 2014, opposition No B 002152844;

— order OHIM to pay the fees and costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
2.

Breach of the prohibition on discrimination and of the requirement of equal treatment — Secondly, the applicant argues that the Commission’s conduct as regards the suspension can be said to be inconsistent and as a result gives rise to a breach of the prohibition on discrimination and the requirement of equal treatment.