ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/38

Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling)

(Case T-627/13)

2014/C 45/67

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France)

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 11 September 2013 given in Case R 1387/2012-2;

— 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 ‘Darjeeling’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 35 and 38 — Community trade mark application No 9 468 521

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community collective trade mark registration No 4 325 718 of the word mark ‘DARJEELING’ for goods in Class 30; Community collective trade mark registration No 8 674 327 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DARJEELING’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

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 52/42

Action brought on 13 December 2013 — Unibail Management v OHIM (Representation of two lines and four stars)

(Case T-687/13)

2014/C 52/81

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Unibail Management (Paris, France) (represented by: L. Bénard, A. Rudoni, O. Klimis, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in part the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2013 in Case R 299/2013-2 in so far as the registration of Community mark No 10 939 981 for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 was refused;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark composed of four five-pointed stars, preceded and followed by a horizontal line for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 10 939 981

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), read in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 75, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/10

Action brought on 10 December 2013 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a cookie)

(Case T-656/13)

2014/C 61/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Freitag, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 given in Case R 997/2013-4;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The three-dimensional trade mark representing a shape of a cookie with a smiling face for goods in Classes 29 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 11 133 683

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected partially the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7 (1) (b) CTMR
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/44

Appeal brought on 30 December 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 17 October 2013 in Case F-127/12 Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-698/13 P)

2014/C 52/85

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

— set aside in its entirety the order under appeal;

— refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant claims that the order under appeal is manifestly unfair, unjust and unlawful by virtue of a total failure to provide reasons and a failure to make preliminary inquiries, as well as on the grounds of ostensibly self-evident, tautologous and arbitrary reasoning, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, and error of law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/37

Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Reed Exhibitions v OHIM (INFOSECURITY)

(Case T-633/13)

2014/C 52/71

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Reed Exhibitions Ltd (Richmond, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2013 given in Case R 1544/2012-5;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘INFOSECURITY’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 35 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 10 155 596

Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/38

Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S BAR)

(Case T-716/13)

2014/C 112/50

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden)

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 8 October 2013 given in joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HARRY’S BAR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 378 031

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: Swedish trade mark registrations Nos 356 009, 320 026, 315 142, 55 6513-1066 for goods and services in Classes 25 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part in Case R 995/2012-1 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 946/2012-1

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 4 CTMR.
2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging errors of law, divided into three parts, based on: — an incorrect interpretation of Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment of Other Staff of the European Union (CEOS) (with regard to paragraphs 56 to 58 of the judgment under appeal); — an error of law in the definition of the relationship between the interest of the service and the principle of legality (with regard to paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal); — an infringement of the limits on the judicial review of the CST and the fact that the CST therefore ruled ultra vires (with regard to paragraphs 59, 60 and 63).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Mogyi Kft. v OHIM

(Case T-9/14)

(2014/C 71/47)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant(s): Mogyi Kft. (Csávoly, Hungary) (represented by Zs. Klauber, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Order the publication of the trade mark application except as regards ‘bread, pastries, sugar’ (Class 30), and ‘agricultural products, seeds’ (Class 31).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Just crunch it …’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 35 — Community trade mark application 10 716 711

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal to register

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the contested decision by decision in Case R 1922/2012-1

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/19

Action brought on 8 January 2014 — NetMed v OHIM — Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik (SANDTER 1953)

(Case T-21/14)

2014/C 61/34

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: NetMed Sàrl (Wasserbillig, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Schafhaus, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik GmbH (Baden-Baden, Germany)

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 24 October 2013 in Case R 1846/2012-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the appeal and opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SANDTER 1953’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 10 — Community trade mark application No 9 448 887

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘Sander’ for goods in Classes 5, 10 and 25; the international figurative mark with protection in the Benelux countries, Austria and France which includes the word element ‘SANDER’, for goods in Classes 5, 10 and 25

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 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/15

Action brought on 21 January 2014 — Pfizer v Commission and EMA

(Case T-48/14)

2014/C 78/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pfizer Ltd (Sandwich, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Bacon and M. Schaefer, Barristers, I. Dodds-Smith, C. Stothers and J. Mulryne, Solicitors)

Defendants: European Commission and European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Commission and of EMA contained in the letters of 11 November 2013 and of 15 November 2013 not to issue the compliance statement; and

— Order the Commission and EMA to bear the costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that in contending that the compliance statement, for the applicant’s marketing authorisation of medicinal product Vfend, cannot be issued until the studies set out in the paediatric investigation plan (‘PIP’) have been assessed for the purposes of the new prophylaxis indication, the EMA has misinterpreted Article 28(3) of the Paediatric Regulation (1).

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (OJ L 378, p.1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/47

Action brought on 24 January 2014 — Bredenkamp and others v Council and Commission

(Case T-66/14)

2014/C 112/60

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: John Arnold Bredenkamp (Harare, Zimbabwe); Echo Delta (Holdings) PCC Ltd (Castletown, Ile de Man); Scottlee Holdings (Private) Ltd (Harare); and Fodya (Private) Ltd (Harare) (represented by: P. Moser, QC (Queen's Counsel) and G. Martin, Solicitor)

Defendants: European Commission and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Adopt a measure of organisation of procedure to order the defendants to produce all information or evidence, which may be in the possession of those institutions concerning the listing of the applicants;

— Order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the applicants damages for non-material and material losses suffered due to the unlawful imposition of EU sanctions on the applicants by adding (and then maintaining until 2012) the applicants’ names in the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 by, respectively: Council Common Position 2009/68/CFSP and Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009; Council Decision 2010/92/CFSP and Commission Regulation (EU) No 173/2010, and Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP and Commission Regulation (EU) No 174/2011;

— Order that compound interest at the rate of Euribor + 2 % (or such other interest rate as may be ordered) is to be paid on the amount payable from the defendants to the applicants as from the date of the judgment;

— Order the defendants to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the acts in question lacked any proper legal basis, being promulgated on the basis of Articles 60 and 301 EC only, which concern exclusively provisions vis-à-vis third countries, not private individuals and companies.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the acts in question disclosed manifest errors of fact in failing to show any strong ties to the Government of Zimbabwe or financial or other support for the regime, thereby failing to satisfy the defendants’ burden of proof and resulting in an unlawful decision making process.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the acts in question violated essential procedural requirements by failing to give any or sufficient reasons, and failing to give the applicants the opportunity to be heard or make exculpatory submissions.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the PPA decision is manifestly unlawful. The applicants contend that the PPA decision (which is currently being appealed before the General Court — case T-179/09) is vitiated by a large number of grave errors that are incompatible with the normal conduct of an institution in charge of ensuring the application of competition rules and should thus give rise to liability on part of the EU, as: — the data included in the PPA decision clearly demonstrate that the PPA did not confer any economic advantage; — the PPA formed part of Dunamenti’s privatisation package and pre-dated it, and was thus valued in the price paid by Electrabel but the Commission refused to take it into account, thereby manifestly infringing EU law; — the recovery order of the PPA decision is so deeply vitiated that a calculation made by well-known economists found, as an outcome, a negative aid, which means no aid. The applicants submit that such gross mistakes cannot be explained by the prima facie complexity of the case or by the objective constraints to which the Commission is subject when carrying out State aid control. Rather, these mistakes are to a large extent due to the Commission’s refusal to assess the PPA individually and constitute clear evidence of a serious failure to observe the limits imposed on the discretion of the Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/24

Action brought on 23 January 2014 — Blackrock v OHIM (INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD)

(Case T-59/14)

2014/C 129/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Blackrock, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and M. Blair, Solicitors)

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

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 31 October 2013 given in Case R 573/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD’ for services in Classes 35 and 36 — Community trade mark application No 11 144 706

Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark applied for not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/56

Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos v Council

(Case T-113/14)

2014/C 112/73

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos SACIFI y A (Bahia Blanca, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs.

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 that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/46

Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz v OHIM — Andechser Molkerei Scheitz (Genuß für Leib & Seele KLOSTER Andechs SEIT 1455)

(Case T-78/14)

2014/C 135/59

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz Köperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (Munich, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH (Andechs, Germany)

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 14 November 2013 in Case R 1272/2012-1 concerning the opposition proceedings No B 1 754 228 (Community trade mark application No 9 255 811);

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Genuß für Leib & Seele KLOSTER Andechs SEIT 1455’ for goods in Class 29 (Community trade mark application No 9 255 811)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community figurative marks containing the word elements ‘ANDECHSER NATUR’ and ‘ANDECHSER NATUR SEIT 1908’ for goods and services in Classes 29 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of the second sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009

— Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/59

Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council

(Case T-163/14)

2014/C 135/78

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH (Munich, Germany); Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc. (Changshu, China); Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc. (Luoyang, China); Csi Cells Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China); and Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. (Suzhou) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the action admissible;

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66), as far as it applies to the applicants;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that by imposing countervailing measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 10(12) and 10(13) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (1).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing countervailing measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-subsidy investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.

3. Third plea in law, alleging by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 2(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93)