ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/14

Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Brammer v OHIM — Office Ernest T. Freylinger (EUROMARKER)

(Case T-683/13)

2014/C 61/24

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Brammer GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. Kornfeld, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Office Ernest T. Freylinger SA (Strassen, Luxembourg)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

in so far as the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) also confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division of 4 July 2012, in that it upheld the opposition also for the supply of services in Class 38 and in Class 42,

— find that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) made an error;

— 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 in Case R 1653/2012-1;

— order the defendant OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Brammer GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EUROMARKER’ for services in Classes 38, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application Nr 9 852 849

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Office Ernest T. Freylinger SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘EURIMARK’ for services in Classes 35, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark No 5 850 111

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 No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/16

Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Monster Energy v OHIM (REHABILITATE)

(Case T-712/13)

2014/C 61/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, 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 First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 given in Case R 609/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘REHABILITATE’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 10 834 802

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and Article 4 CTMR
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/45

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-145/12 Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-699/13 P)

2014/C 52/86

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

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put forward in Case T-698/13 P Marcuccio v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/39

Appeal brought on 16 December 2013 by the Court of Auditors of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 October 2013 in Case F-69/11, BF v Court of Auditors

(Case T-663/13 P)

2014/C 52/75

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by T. Kennedy and J. Vermer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: BF (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-69/11;

— grant the form of order sought at first instance by the Court of Auditors, namely dismiss the action as unfounded;

— order BF to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those which took place before the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging an error of law, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal incorrectly interpreted and applied Article 6 of Decision 45-2010 of 17 June 2010 on the selection procedures for Heads of Unit and Directors.

2. Second plea in law, alleging distortion of the evidence by the Civil Service Tribunal in considering that the scores awarded to the candidates by the Pre-selection Committee constituted information that must be included in the report submitted by the Pre-selection Committee to the appointing authority.

3. Third plea in law, alleging distortion of the facts, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal acted in breach of its obligation to examine the facts on the basis of which it found there to be a procedural irregularity.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/37

Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry’s New York Bar (HARRY’S BAR)

(Case T-711/13)

2014/C 112/49

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harry’s New York Bar SA (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 8 October 2013 given in joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1;

— 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 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 applicant

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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/13

Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Colomer Italy v OHIM — Farmaca International (INTERCOSMO ESTRO)

(Case T-681/13)

2014/C 78/26

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Colomer Italy SpA (Sala Bolognese, Italy) (represented by: M. Ricolfi, F. Tarocco and C. Mezzetti, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Farmaca International SpA (Turin, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Uphold the present action and consequently annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 3 October 2013, notified on 17 October 2013, given in Case R 1186/2012-1;

— Reject Farmaca International SpA.’s opposition to the registration of the mark ‘INTERCOSMO ESTRO’, so that that registration is granted;

— Order that the applicant’s costs in the proceedings be awarded in its favour.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Colomer Italy SpA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘INTERCOSMO ESTRO’ for goods in class 3

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Farmaca International SpA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Non-registered figurative mark ‘ESTRO’ for ‘hair and cosmetic’ goods

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement and misapplication of Articles 8(4), 7(1) and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
3.

Abuse of procedure, since, in establishing ex novo a risk sharing criterion in the charging scheme, the Commission did not follow the procedure established in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky, referred to in Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky. According to the applicant, those provisions provide that the Commission is to adopt implementing rules for the purpose of establishing that charging scheme, assisted by the Single Sky Committee and, moreover, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. In the alternative, the applicant also invokes a breach of the obligation to state reasons, and of Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 since, before taking its decision, the Commission did not consult the Single Sky Committee concerning whether or not Spain’s position was consistent with the principles and rules of the charging scheme.
1.

First plea in law, alleging breaches of (i) Articles 1(1), 7(2) and 9(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51) by the Council of the European Union, as well as, a breach of (ii) the principles of good administration, of proportionality and of non-discrimination by the Council of the European Union when ordering the definitive collection of the provisional anti-dumping measures imposed on the applicant, as: — On the basis of Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, no anti-dumping measures can be imposed on exporters, such as the applicant, whose products are found not to be dumped. There is therefore no legal basis for imposing provisional anti-dumping duties on the applicant let alone for ordering the collection of such duties; — The Council breached Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 by imposing and definitively collecting a provisional dumping duty of 2,8% on the applicant in excess of its correct provisional margin of dumping; — Article 9(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 prohibits the imposition of provisional duties by the Commission where the provisional dumping of margin is less than 2%. The Council breached Article 9(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 by ordering the definitive collection of provisional duties imposed on the applicant; — In light of the errors made by the European Commission when calculating the applicant’s provisional margin of dumping, the Council should have concluded that the Commission failed to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the case. Such failure amounts to a breach of the principle of good administration; — The Council’s actions in definitively collecting the wrongly imposed provisional duties from the applicant must be considered as disproportionate to the objective of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and, consequently, a breach of the principle of proportionality; — By requiring the applicant’s wrongly calculated provisional dumping duties to be definitely collected and not requiring P.T. Cilandra Perkasa to pay provisional dumping duties, the Council has discriminated between two undertakings whose situations are comparable. Accordingly, the applicant submits that the Council is in breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/14

Action brought on 20 January 2014 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Wattline (WATTLINE)

(Case T-46/14)

2014/C 78/29

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sales & Solutions GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wattline GmbH (Ruderting, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Alter the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2013 in Case R 1668/2012-4 to the effect that the opposition is upheld in its entirety and the application for the Community trade mark is rejected;

— Order the intervener 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: Wattline GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘WATTLINE’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 8 908 345

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word and figurative mark and the Community word and figurative mark ‘Watt’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the contested decision was annulled and the opposition was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and infringement of Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95
—

Annul provisions including Article 7 (travelling time) of Annex V to the Staff Regulations and Article 8 (travel expenses) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union [(OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15)], in so far as the entitlement to travel expenses and travelling time is linked to the expatriation or foreign-residence allowance;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/50

Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Maquet (LUCEO)

(Case T-82/14)

2014/C 112/64

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Henkel, lawyer)

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

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

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 25 November 2013 in Case R 2292/2012-4 and reject the application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark LUCEO, No 8 554 974; In the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark LUCEO for goods in Classes, 10, 12 and 28 — Community trade mark No 8 554 974

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Maquet GmbH & Co. KG

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:

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

— Infringement of Article 74 of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/30

Action brought on 7 February 2014 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council

(Case T-87/14)

2014/C 129/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (Tehran, Iran); Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL) (Tehran); Khazar Shipping Lines (Anzali Free Zone, Iran); IRISL Europe GmbH (Hamburg, Germany); IRISL Marine Services and Engineering Co. (Qeshm Island, Iran); Irano Misr Shipping Co. (Tehran); Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID) (Tehran); Shipping Computer Services Co. (Tehran); Soroush Sarzamin Asatir Ship Management (Tehran); South Way Shipping Agency Co. Ltd (Tehran); et Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. (Tehran) (represented by: F. Randolph, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision 2013/685/CFSP of 26 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 316, p. 46) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1203/2013 of 26 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 316, p. 1), in so far as they apply to the applicants;

— Declare the inapplicability as regards Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 272, p. 46) and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 272, p. 1);

— Order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants rely on the ‘objection of illegality’ in seeking to have the October Measures declared unlawful in that: they lack a proper legal basis; violate the applicants’ legitimate expectations, and the principles of finality, legal certainty, non bis in idem, and res judicata; they discriminate against IRISL and violate its fundamental rights without justification or proportion; breach the applicants’ rights of defence; and are an abuse of the Council’s powers.

The applicants rely on the following grounds for the annulment of the Contested Measures.

1. First plea in law, alleging that there is no proper legal basis for the Contested Measures.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has erred manifestly in its decisions to include each of the applicants.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicants’ rights of defence.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures breach the applicants’ legitimate expectations, and the principles of finality, legal certainty, res judicata, non bis in idem, and non-discrimination.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/55

Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Unitec Bio v Council

(Case T-111/14)

2014/C 112/71

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unitec Bio SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyer)

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 135/57

Action brought on 3 March 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of a yellowy pattern)

(Case T-143/14)

2014/C 135/74

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2013 given in Case R 703/2013-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark representing a device of a yellowy pattern for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 16, 25, 35-39, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 11 388 311

Decision of the Examiner: Found the 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) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/55

Action brought on 24 February 2014 — Tilda Riceland Private v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE)

(Case T-136/14)

2014/C 135/71

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

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

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

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

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 December 2013 given in Case R 1086/2012-4;

— 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 in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark application No 3 520 641

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The earlier non-registered trade mark and the earlier sign ‘used in the course of trade designating a class of goods’‘BASMATI’ used in the United Kingdom in relation to ‘rice’

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.