ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 304/23

Action brought on 23 August 2013 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT VODKA)

(Case T-450/13)

2013/C 304/40

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut S.A. (Łańcut, Poland)

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 10 June 2013 given in Case R 1734/2011-4;

— Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark in colours red, green, gold and black representing the image of a bovine animal and containing the verbal elements ‘WISENT VODKA’ for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 7 044 472

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Polish trademarks Nos 86 410, 80 990, 80 991, 46 050, 208 988, 125 911, 189 866, 208 090, 62 081 registered for ‘alcoholic beverages’ in Class 33, Community trade mark No 5 585 138 for the figurative mark in colours black and white containing the verbal element ‘ŻUBRÓWKA’ and Community trade mark No 6 215 719 for the 3D mark in colours black and white containing the verbal element ‘ŻUBRÓWKA’, registered for ‘alcoholic beverages (except beers)’ in Class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the application for Community trade mark registration

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

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (CTMR) (1).

(1) OJ L 78, p. 1
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to fulfill the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicant and/or included the applicant without an adequate legal basis for doing so.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/32

Action brought on 23 August 2013 — Larrañaga Otaño v OHIM (GRAPHENE)

(Case T-459/13)

2013/C 313/61

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Joseba Larrañaga Otaño (San Sebastian, Spain) and Mikel Larrañaga Otaño (San Sebastian) (represented by F. Bueno Salamero, lawyer)

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

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark applied for: Word mark ‘GRAPHENE’ for goods and services in Classes 2, 6, 10 and 22 — application for Community trade mark No 10 892 446.

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)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
3.

Third ground of appeal, alleging an error in law, a manifest error of assessment, distortion of the facts, a failure to state the reasons and a failure to respond to a plea, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal failed to respond to the appellant’s pleas concerning (i) the Parliament’s obstruction of the appellant’s recruitment by the institutions and bodies of the European Union, (ii) the absence of information concerning the existence of the list of suitable candidates and (iii) the fact that EPSO received permission to enter the appellant in its database and pass on that information.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in failing to take any, or any adequate, account of the factual, economic and legal context, which showed that, absent the Agreements, GUK would not have launched citalopram any more quickly in the UK or other EEA markets.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/58

Action brought on 30 August 2013 — You-View.tv/OHMI — YouView TV (YouView+)

(Case T-480/13)

2013/C 344/107

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: You-View.tv (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: S. Criel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: YouView TV Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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 18 June 2013 given in Case R 2112/2012-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘YouView+’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 10 286 061

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark in red and white containing verbal elements ‘You View You-View.tv’ for services in Classes 35, 38 and 41 — Benelux trade mark No 838 408

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/27

Action brought on 16 September 2013 — La Rioja Alta v OHIM — Aldi Einkauf (VIÑA ALBERDI)

(Case T-489/13)

2013/C 336/58

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: La Rioja Alta, SA (Haro, Spain) (represented by: F. Pérez Álvarez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 1190/2011-4 of 9 July 2013;

— declare valid Community trade mark No 3 189 065‘VIÑA ALBERDI’ for ‘Alcoholic beverages (except beers), except wines from Italy’ in Class 33 of the International Nice Classification;

— order OHIM and the other parties before the Court to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘VIÑA ALBERDI’ for goods in Classes 30, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark registration No 3 189 065

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) and (b) of the same regulation — Figurative mark with the word elements ‘VILLA ALBERTI’

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) and (b) of the same regulation
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 352/17

Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Government of Malaysia v OHIM — Vergamini (HALAL MALAYSIA)

(Case T-508/13)

2013/C 352/33

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Government of Malaysia (Putrajaya, Malaysia) (represented by: R. Volterra, Solicitor, R. Miller, Barrister, V. von Bomhard and T. Heitmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paola Vergamini (Castelnuovo di Garfagnana, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 June 2013 given in Case R 326/2012-1; and

— Order that the costs of proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if it joins as the intervener.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘HALAL MALAYSIA’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 18, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 169 343

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The non-registered figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘HALAL MALAYSIA’, which is well known in all 27 Member States of the European Union within the meaning of Article 8(2)(c) CTMR in conjunction with Article 6bis of the Paris Convention and for the purpose of Article 8(4) CTMR a non-registered figurative mark in the United Kingdom

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/59

Action brought on 10 September 2013 — Oikonomopoulos v Commission

(Case T-483/13)

2013/C 344/108

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Athanassios Oikonomopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and I. Zarzoura, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Award damages;

— Declare that a series of OLAF’s actions and measures are legally non- existent and constitute inadmissible evidence.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by OLAF, as it was not entitled to conduct an investigation in the context of contractual relations between the Commission and a third party and acted ultra vires in the relevant investigation infringing several articles of the relevant legal framework, such as Council Regulation No 2185/96 (1) and Regulation No 1073/1999 (2).

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 45/2001 (3) on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, violation of Article 8 of Regulation No 1073/1999, breach of the obligation to maintain confidentiality, violation of the right to private life, violation of the principle of sound administration, as OLAF and different DGs of the Commission acted unlawfully when processed personal data of the applicant and transmitted such personal data within the Commission, and third parties.

3. Third plea in law, alleging violation of the right of defense, as the applicant has very limited information on the facts that concern him in the context of the relevant investigation and consequently was not given the opportunity to defend himself against any eventual accusation.

(1) Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (OJ 1996 L 292, p. 2)

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ 1999 L 136, p. 1)

(3) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1)
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed Article 36 of the Act of Accession (Annex VII, point 1), which forms an integral part of the Treaty between the Member States of the European Union and the Republic of Croatia concerning the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (Narodne novine — Međunarodni ugovori no 2/12 (Official Gazette — International Treaties)), by failing to prevent the repeal of the legislation establishing and regulating the profession of public enforcement officer, which the Republic of Croatia had adopted during the negotiations for accession to the European Union. Article 36 of the Act of Accession requires the Commission to monitor all commitments undertaken by Croatia in the negotiations on accession to the European Union, including, therefore, the legal obligations undertaken by the Republic of Croatia to establish a public enforcement officers’ service and to establish all the conditions necessary for the full implementation of that service in the Croatian legal system by 1 January 2012 at the latest.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 359/16

Action brought on 30 September 2013 — H&M Hennes & Mauritz v OHIM — Yves Saint Laurent (handbags)

(Case T-526/13)

2013/C 359/31

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yves Saint Laurent SAS (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2013 given in Case R 208/2012-3;

— Declare the registered Community design No 61 3294-0002 invalid; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for the product ‘handbags’ in Class 03-01 — registered Community design No 61 3294-0002

Proprietor of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Articles 4 to 9 and 25(1)(c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Council Regulation No 6/2002

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation No 6/2002.
1.

The first argument is based on the Commission’s failure to respect the principles of good faith and fair dealing. Specifically, the applicant maintains that the Commission sought differing amounts, but failed to provide concrete and specific reasons for the creation of each claim, and that the Commission’s way of doing business is contrary to the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Further, the applicant maintains that the Commission’s intention to make claims on the basis of the general conditions of a different type of contract (FP6) which differ from those which apply in the REACH 112 (CIP) agreement also reveals that the Commission’s conduct is contrary to accepted standards.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to comply with EU legislation, as it proceeded with the evaluation of tenders and the award of the contract after the expiration of the validity of tenders.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/34

Action brought on 20 November 2013 — AIC v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchangers)

(Case T-615/13)

2014/C 24/64

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: AIC S.A. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ACV Manufacturing (Seneffe, Belgium)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2013 given in Case R 291/2012-3;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The design for a product described as ‘heat exchangers’ — Registered Community Design No 1 618 703-0001

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the design did not fulfil the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2), in conjunction with Articles 5 and 6 and in particular Article 8(1) and (2) CDR

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 4(2) CDR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/32

Action brought on 20 November 2013 — Levi Strauss v OHIM — L&O Hunting Group (101)

(Case T-604/13)

2014/C 24/58

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Levi Strauss & Co. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Schmitt, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L&O Hunting Group GmbH (Isny im Allgäu, 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 6 September 2013 given in Case R 1538/2012-2;

— Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and the intervener, in case it was to intervene.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘101’ for goods in Classes 13, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 446 634

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 26 708 of the word mark ‘501’ for goods in Classes 16, 18 and 25

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/10

Action brought on 1 October 2013 — Société européenne des chaux et liants v ECHA

(Case T-540/13)

2014/C 31/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société européenne des chaux et liants (Bourgoin-Jallieu, France) (represented by: J. Dezarnaud, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

— Uphold the applicant’s request to be fully relieved of the fine of which it has been notified.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant requests that it be relieved of the administrative charge imposed by Decision SME (2013) 1665 of the ECHA which found that the applicant does not fulfil the conditions for eligibility for the reduced fee envisaged for small-sized enterprises, in the light of its corrective declaration submitted after the initiation by the ECHA of the verification procedure relating to the size of the undertaking.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on a certain number of pleas in law:

— the fact that the sanction adopted is disproportionate to the error which can be imputed to it;

— the fact that it corrected its declaration when first requested by the ECHA;

— the fact that it can be excused for misinterpreting an extremely technical document drafted in a language other than its own;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/23

Action brought on 25 October 2013 — Giovanni Cosmetics v OHIM — Vasconcelos & Gonçalves (GIOVANNI GALLI)

(Case T-559/13)

2014/C 24/41

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Giovanni Cosmetics, Inc. (Rancho Dominguez, United States) (represented by: J. van den Berg and M. Meddens-Bakker, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vasconcelos & Gonçalves, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

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 13 August 2013 given in Case R 1189/2012-2;

— Order that the CTM application No 9 232 471 be refused;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘GIOVANNI GALLI’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 14 and 18 — Community trade mark application No 9 232 471

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2 404 283 of the word mark ‘GIOVANNI’ for goods in Class 3

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b)CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/22

Action brought on 11 November 2013 — Cosmowell v OHIM — Haw Par (GELENKGOLD)

(Case T-599/13)

2014/C 39/38

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cosmowell GmbH (Sankt Johann in Tirol) (represented by: J. Sachs, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haw Par Corp. Ltd (Singapore, Singapore)

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 13 September 2013 in Case R 2013/2012-4;

— order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark which includes the picture of a tiger and the word element ‘GELENKGOLD’, for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 9957978

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Haw Par Corp. Ltd

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative marks which include the picture of a tiger, for goods in Class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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