ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/12

Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission

(Case T-210/12)

2012/C 209/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (West Drayton, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission’s Decision of 20 April 2011 concerning State aid C 19/09 which Denmark intends to implement regarding the restructuring of TV 2 Danmark A/S;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging essentially that the European Commission erred in law when it failed to include in its assessment aid granted to TV 2 Danmark A/S through 8 regional TV 2 broadcasting stations.

In this regard, the applicant submits that the broadcasts provided free of charge by the regional broadcasting stations, which are financed by licence fees, to TV 2 Danmark A/S constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In addition, it is recalled that according to the public service licence issued to TV 2 Danmark A/S by the Minster of Culture, TV 2 Danmark A/S retains the advertising revenue generated by the ‘advertisement slots’ in the regional broadcast.

The applicant further alleges that by disregarding the State aid provided to TV 2 Danmark A/S through the regional broadcasting stations, the defendant has not considered the financial situation of TV 2 Danmark A/S in the light of the full spectrum of the revenues of such.

Due to this failure, the applicant alleges that the entire assessment made by the defendant of the restructuring plan is based on erroneous assumptions concerning TV 2 Danmark A/S’s financial situation. Therefore, the applicant alleges that the defendant has not been in a position to confirm that the conditions laid down in its own Guidelines (1) are met.

Consequently, the applicant alleges that the defendant has failed to comply with the criteria defined by the Commission itself in the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty and ultimately in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, when it assessed the rescue and restructuring aid to TV 2 Danmark A/S.

(1) Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (OJ 2004 C 244, p. 2)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/25

Action brought on 29 May 2012 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — LĺDL MUSIC (LIDL express)

(Case T-225/12)

2012/C 227/43

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Schaeffer, M. Wolter and A. Marx, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LĺDL MUSIC, spol. s r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic)

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 21 March 2012 (R 2379/2010-1);

— 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 ‘LIDL express’ for goods in class 15 — Community trade mark application No 6 857 536

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: National figurative mark and community word mark ‘LÍDL MUSIC’ for goods in class 15

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 15(1) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) and (4) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, in support of the first part of the form of order sought, alleging that the applicants did not infringe Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreements: — The Commission committed manifest error by including applicants in the alleged Automated Manifest System (‘AMS’) cartel and failing to properly assess facts and conduct a complete and correct analysis of its own evidentiary record, as: — The Commission incorrectly analyses facts in its own evidentiary record; — The Decision misstates the scope of the discussion held in the framework of the association Freight Forward International (‘FFI’); — FFI members did not agree on a price or a range of prices; — Applicants and other forwarders selectively imposed AMS fees for competitive advantage; — The Commission ignored clear evidence that applicants’ membership in FFI did not demonstrate applicants’ involvement in the AMS fee cartel; and — The Commission ignores clear evidence that applicants independently set their AMS fee based on air cargo carriers’ AMS fees and other factors of market pricing. — The Commission fails to establish that applicants participated in any agreement to distort competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, as: — Applicants’ presence at six FFI meetings and conference call does not meet the legal standard for violation of Article 101 TFEU; and — The Decision contains no evidence that applicants participated in any bilateral or multilateral discussions outside of FFI regarding the AMS fee. — The AMS fee had no ‘appreciable effect “on competition, as: — The AMS fee was a minuscule component of the total shipment price; and — The AMS fee was inevitable based on the air cargo carriers” decision to introduce a fee and thus had no appreciable effect on the market.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 273/13

Action brought on 28 June 2012 — Cartoon Network v OHIM — Boomerang TV (BOOMERANG)

(Case T-285/12)

2012/C 273/22

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Cartoon Network, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: I. Starr, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Boomerang TV, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 April 2012 in case R 699/2011-2; and

— Order the defendant to pay to the applicant, the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BOOMERANG’ for services in classes 38 and 41

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 mark registration No 1160050 of the figurative mark ‘Boomerang TV’, for services in class 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

Declare and rule that the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 266 TFEU, since, despite having been formally invited to do so, it failed to take any measure to comply with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union issued on 20 October 2011 in Case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council and to define its position in that regard within the time limit set thereon;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/33

Action brought on 16 July 2012 — Simca Europe v OHIM — PSA Peugeot Citroën (Simca)

(Case T-327/12)

2012/C 287/62

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Simca Europe Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Haberkamm, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PSA Peugeot Citroën GIE (Paris, France)

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 12 April 2012 in Case R 645/2011-1;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs, including the costs for the applicant’s counsel.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘Simca’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark No 6 489 371

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: PSA Peugeot Citroën GIE

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the applicant was acting in bad faith at the time when it filed the application

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the mark was declared invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
2.

Second plea in law: infringement of Article 107(1) and Article 106(2) TFEU in finding that the applicant was granted a financial advantage by means of the payments and that it was not a service in the general economic interest. Through the payments made by its members, the applicant does not receive any economic advantage, since the payments remain in the sphere of public service activity and there is no co-financing of any other activity offered by the applicant on the market. In the alternative, the applicant submits that it provides a service in the general economic interest, which the Commission fails to recognise, thereby manifestly infringing the powers of discretion recognised in the case-law, which constitutes an error of assessment. Moreover, the four ‘Altmark criteria’ are satisfied in the present case.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has committed an error of law by not taking into account relevant information regarding the competitive conditions that would prevail absent the acquisition, allowing the Commission to appraise the acquisition against a less competitive situation than would have been the case. In particular, the Commission erred in its treatment of: (i) the package of slots sold by bmi to IAG/British Airways in September 2011; and (ii) the bmi slots over which IAG/British Airways took security in return for a pre-payment of £60m of the purchase price for bmi.
—

Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (JO L 126, p. 3), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/35

Action brought on 14 August 2012 — Capitalizaciones Mercantiles v OHIM — Leineweber (X)

(Case T-378/12)

2012/C 366/72

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Capitalizaciones Mercantiles Ltda (Bogota, Colombia) (represented by: J. Devaureix, and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leineweber GmbH & Co. KG (Herford, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Admit this application for annulment, with all the documents annexed, and the corresponding copies;

— Admit all the pieces of evidence attached to the writ;

— Hold for the applicant, leaving with no effect the decision issued by the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2012 in case R 1524/2011-1, regarding CTM application No 7045818, and consequently, confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of 25 May 2011 which granted registration of the CTM No 7045818 ‘X’ (figurative) for goods in class 25; and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘X’ for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No 7045818

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 mark registration No 4736609 of the figurative mark ‘X’, for, among others, goods in class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the contested application for the goods in class 25

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/12

Action brought on 6 August 2012 — Aleris v OHIM — Carefusion 303 (ALARIS)

(Case T-353/12)

2012/C 311/15

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Aleris Holding AB (Stockolm, Sweden) (represented by: A. Kylhammar and K. Westerberg, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carefusion 303, Inc. (San Diego, United States)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 11 May 2012 (R 334/2011-5), as well as Section 2 of the Cancellation decision, and render a decision in accordance with the applicant’s request; and

— Order the respondent as the losing party to bear all costs and fees incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘ALARIS’, for goods and services in classes 10, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 571521

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

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the Community trade mark only in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of the fundamental principles that must be applied in revocation proceedings based on non-use. Infringement of Articles 15 and 9 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 September 2012 — Luigi Lavazza SpA v OHIM

(Case T-392/12)

(2012/C 331/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Lavazza SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, G.E. Sironi, M. Ricolfi and C.E. Mezzetti, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Commercialunione Prima Srl (Bresso, Italy)

Form of order sought

— uphold the action and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 26 June 2012 in Case R 124/2011-1, on grounds of infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— reject the opposition of Commercialunione Prima Srl to the European Union-wide registration of international trade mark No W000943981 ‘Lavazza a modo mio’ and, consequently, grant the same scope of registration;

— order that the costs borne by Luigi Lavazza SpA in the proceedings be fully awarded in its favour.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Luigi Lavazza SpA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘LAVAZZA A MODO MIO’ for goods and services in Classes 11, 29, 30 and 43 — International registration for European Union No W00 943 981

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Commercialunione Prima Srl

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative marks ‘A MODO MIO’, ‘la PIZZA A MODO MIO’ and ‘A MODO MIO BIRRA & MUSIC’ for services in Class 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Action partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The Board of Appeal took note of the withdrawal of the application for registration of ‘LAVAZZA A MODO MIO’ for Class 43 only and dismissed the action as to the remainder

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and the second part of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/28

Action brought on 21 August 2012 — Electric Bike World v OHIM — Brunswick (LIFECYCLE)

(Case T-379/12)

2012/C 355/61

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Electric Bike World Ltd (Southampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brunswick Corp. (Lake Forest, United States)

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 16 May 2012 in case R 2308/2011-1; and

— Order the Office and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LIFECYCLE’ for goods in classes 12, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 8546401

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 trade mark registration No 1271758 of the word mark ‘LIFECYCLE’, for goods in class 28

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision to the extent that it rejected the opposition for goods in class 12; rejected the CTM application for these goods; and dismissed the appeal for the remaining goods in class 12

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/33

Action brought on 14 September 2012 — Ubee Interactive v OHIM — Augere Holdings (Netherlands) (ubee)

(Case T-408/12)

2012/C 355/70

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ubee Interactive Corp. (Jhubei City, Taiwan) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Augere Holdings (Netherlands) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 July 2012 in case R 1848/2011-2; and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ubee’, for goods and services in classes 9 and 38 — Community trade mark application No 7467111

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 mark registration No 7130248 of the word mark ‘QUBEE’, for goods and services in classes 9, 37, 38 and 42; Community trade mark No 7224603 of the figurative mark ‘QUBEE’, for goods and services in classes 9, 37, 38 and 42

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 September 2012 — Cosma Moden v OHIM — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (COSMA)

(Case T-398/12)

(2012/C 331/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cosma Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Emsdetten, Germany) (represented by: J. Meyer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG (Rottendorf, Gemany)

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 4 July 2012 in Case R 2011/2010-4 in respect of Community trade mark application No 6 589 808 and alter that decision to the effect that the appeal is well founded and that the opposition must as a result also be rejected as to the remainder;

— order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘COSMA’ for goods and services in Classes 24, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 6 589 808

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark including the word element ‘comma’ and the national word mark ‘comma’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 6, 9, 14, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28 and 35

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