ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 November 2022 — Portal Golf Gestión v EUIPO — Augusta National (imaster.golf)

(Case T-677/22)

(2023/C 15/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Portal Golf Gestión, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Garrido Pastor, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Augusta National, Inc. (Augusta, Georgia, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark imaster.golf — Application for registration No 17 995 602

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2022 in Case R 2204/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— allow the registration of the mark applied for in respect of all the goods and services covered;

— change the decisions on costs issued by the Opposition Division and the Appeal Division ordering to pay costs to the other side;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 November 2022 — Poppysle v Commission

(Case T-704/22)

(2023/C 24/80)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Poppysle — Comércio Internacional e Serviços, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Ferreira Correia and R. da Palma Borges, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision in respect of Articles 1 and 4;

— order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action brought against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on six pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-702/22, TA v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 November 2022 — Kiana v Commission

(Case T-690/22)

(2023/C 24/69)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Kiana, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 November 2022 — BIW Invest v EUIPO — New Yorker Marketing & Media International (Compton)

(Case T-747/22)

(2023/C 24/105)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: BIW Invest AG (Appenzell, Switzerland) (represented by: E. Mielke, U. Stelzenmüller and J. Weiser, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: New Yorker Marketing & Media International GmbH (Brunswick, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Compton — EU word mark No 15 578 776

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2022 in Case R 1913/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the other party to bear the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of the second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 November 2022 — Bourbon Offshore Interoil Shipping v Commission

(Case T-721/22)

(2023/C 35/91)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Bourbon Offshore Interoil Shipping — Navegação, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Fernandes Martins and M. Mendonça Saraiva, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

— in any event, without prejudice to the previous head of claim, annul Article 4 of Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) and, consequently, the order to recover the aid from the beneficiaries, together with interest;

— annul the contested decision in accordance with Article 264 TFEU;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the methodology proposed by the European Commission of defining the concept of ‘job creation’ in FTEs (Full-Time Equivalents) and ALUs (Annual Labour Units), as used in the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 (OJ 2006 C 54, p. 13), is inapplicable.

Second plea in law, alleging the inadmissibility of the order to recover the aid from the beneficiaries and to pay interest.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 November 2022 — Fontwell v Commission

(Case T-691/22)

(2023/C 35/81)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Fontwell — Import, Export, Unipessoal, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 December 2022 — Transport Werk v EUIPO — Haus & Grund Deutschland (Haus & Grund)

(Case T-779/22)

(2023/C 45/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Transport Werk GmbH (Offenbach am Main, Germany) (represented by: D. Donath, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haus & Grund Deutschland Zentralverband der Deutschen Haus-, Wohnungs- und Grundeigentümer e.V. (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Haus & Grund — EU trade mark No 7 161 052

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2022 in Case R 84/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to cancel EU word mark No 7 161 052 ‘Haus & Grund’ from the EU trade mark register for all goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 42 and 45, namely:

Class 9: Data carriers; computer software for the buying, selling, administration, rental, construction and management of buildings, installations and facilities;

Class 16: Printed matter;

Class 35: Advertising; business management services; business administration; business consultancy and advisory services; office functions; research, collation and systematic compilation of news, including court judgements and decisions and regulations of all kinds;

Class 36: Real estate affairs; expert opinions in connection with insurance, financial affairs, real estate affairs and monetary affairs;

Class 38: News agencies, including court judgements and decisions and regulations of all kinds;

Class 42: Expert technical opinions; technical consultancy; creation of computer software for the buying, selling, rental, construction, administration and management of buildings, installations and equipment; creation of computer software to optimise the operation, cost-effectiveness, utilisation, marketing and value retention of property and equipment;

Class 45: Legal services;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

annul Article 3 (i) of the Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 (1), as amended by the Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1904 of 6 October 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (2), in so far it concerns inclusion in the list of goods and technology referred to in Article 3 (i) of the Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1904 (Annex XXI) of the CN code 6814;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/31

Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2009 — Solvay v Commission

(Case T-58/01) (1)

(Competition - Restrictive practices - Market in soda ash in the Community - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Agreement guaranteeing to an undertaking a minimum tonnage of sales in a Member State and the purchase of sufficient quantities to achieve that minimum tonnage - Expiry of limitation period applicable to Commission power to impose fines or sanctions - Reasonable time - Essential procedural requirements - Effect on trade between Member States - Right of access to the file - Fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Aggravating and mitigating circumstances)

2010/C 37/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Solvay (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Simont, P.-A- Foriers, G. Block, F. Louis and A. Vallery, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and J. Currall, Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Re:

First, application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/5/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133 — B: Soda ash — Solvay, CFK) (OJ 2003 L 10, p. 1) and, in the alternative, application for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/5/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133 — B: Soda ash — Solvay, CFK) to the extent that it finds that Solvay SA infringed the provisions of Article 81 EC in 1990;

2. Fixes the fine imposed on Solvay at EUR 2.25 million;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

(1) OJ C 161, 2.6.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/38

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — ACEA v Commission

(Case T-297/02) (1)

(State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Actions for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Existing aid or new aid - Article 87(3)(c) EC)

2009/C 180/68

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ACEA SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Giardina, L. Radicati di Brozolo and V. Puca, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent)

Interveners in support of the applicant: ACSM Como SpA (Como, Italy) (represented by L. Radicati di Brozolo and M. Merola, lawyers) and AEM — Azienda Energetica Metropolitana Torino SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by M. Merola and L. Radicati di Brozolo, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it relates to the Cassa Depositi e Prestiti loans.

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounde.

3. Orders ACEA SpA to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission.

4. Orders ACSM Como SpA and AEM — Azienda Energetica Metropolitana Torino SpA to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/29

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 April 2008 — Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. v OHIM (Representation of a pelican)

(Case T-389/03) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative Community trade mark depicting a pelican - Earlier Community or national figurative trade mark Pelikan - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 128/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. Hofmann and B. Linstow, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Laporta Insa, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Pelikan Vertriebsgessellschaft mbH & Co.KG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, V. von Bomhard and A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by A. Renck, V. von Bomhard and T. Dolde, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 September 2003 (Case R 191/2002-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 21, 21.1.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/37

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2009 — Itochu v Commission

(Case T-12/03) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for video games consoles and games cartridges compatible with Nintendo games consoles - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Limitation of parallel exports - Attributability of the infringement - Fines - Differential treatment - Deterrent effect - Duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

2009/C 141/74

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Itochu Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: Y. Shibasaki G. van Gerven, T. Franchoo, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by P. Hellström and O. Beynet, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and O. Beynet, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Articles 1, 3 and 5 of Commission Decision 2003/675/EC of 30 October 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/35.587 PO Video Games, COMP/35.706 PO Nintendo Distribution and COMP/36.321 Omega — Nintendo) (OJ 2003 L 255, p. 33), in so far as they relate to the applicant, or, in the alternative, reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Itochu Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 55, 8.3.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/40

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Saint-Gobain Gyproc Belgium v Commission

(Case T-50/03) (1)

(Competition - Cartels - Plasterboard market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances)

(2008/C 209/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Saint-Gobain Gyproc Belgium NV, previously BPB Belgium NV, previously Gyproc Benelux NV (Beveren-Kallo, Belgium) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, P. L'Ecluse and M. Favart, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Ingen-Housz and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Arbault, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Articles 229 EC and 230 EC for the reduction of the fine imposed on Gyproc by Commission Decision 2005/471/EC of 27 November 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] against BPB plc, Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV (Case No COMP/E-1/37.152 — Plasterboard) (OJ 2005 L 166, p. 8)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Saint-Gobain Gyproc Belgium NV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/34

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2008 — Strack v Commission

(Case T-394/04) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2003 promotion procedure - Allocation of priority points - Refusal of promotion)

(2008/C 64/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Wasserliesch, Germany) (represented by: first J. Mosar, then F. Gengler and P. Goergen, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Krämer, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the promotion procedure carried out in respect of the applicant for 2003, of the allocation of points made in the context of that procedure and the subsequent decision not to promote the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of First Instance hereby:

1. Annuls the decision concerning the number of priority points allocated to Guido Strack in the 2003 promotion procedure and the decision not to promote him through that procedure.

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/42

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — AC-Treuhand v Commission

(Case T-99/04) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Organic peroxides - Fines - Article 81 EC - Rights of the defence - Right to a fair hearing - Meaning of perpetrator of an infringement - Principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege - Principle of legal certainty - Legitimate expectations)

(2008/C 209/72)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: AC-Treuhand AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Karl, C. Steinle and J. Drolshammer, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet, Agent, and A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Re:

Annulment of Commission decision 2005/349/EC of 10 December 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-2/37.857 — Organic peroxides) (OJ 2005 L 110, p. 44)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders AC-Treuhand AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 30.4.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/31

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2008 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-364/04) (1)

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Products processed from fruit and vegetables - Animal premiums - Period of 24 months)

(2008/C 128/67)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and E. Svolopoulou, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and L. Visaggio, initially, and M. Condou-Durande and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents, and N. Korogiannakis, lawyer, subsequently)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2004/561/EC of 16 July 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 250, p. 21) inasmuch as it excludes certain expenditure by the Hellenic Republic in the sectors of products processed from fruit and vegetables and animal premiums.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/41

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom v Commission

(Joined Cases T-211/04 and T 215/04) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme notified by the United Kingdom regarding the Government of Gibraltar's reform of corporate tax - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Regional selectivity - Material selectivity)

(2009/C 44/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant in Case T-211/04: Government of Gibraltar (represented by M. Llamas, barrister, J. Temple Lang, solicitor, and A. Petersen, lawyer, and initially by K. Nordlander and subsequently by K. Karl, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-215/04: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by M. Bethell and E. Jenkinson, Agents, D. Anderson QC and H. Davies, barrister, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson, E. O'Neill and S. Behzadi-Spencer, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by N. Khan and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant in Case T-211/04: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by M. Bethell, Agent, D. Anderson QC and H. Davies, barrister, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson and E. O'Neill, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by N. Díaz Abad, abogado del Estado)

Re:

Applications for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/261/EC of 30 March 2004 on the aid scheme which the United Kingdom is planning to implement as regards the Government of Gibraltar Corporation Tax Reform (OJ 2005 L 85, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T 211/04 and T 215/04 for the purposes of judgment;

2. Annuls Commission Decision 2005/261/EC of 30 March 2004 on the aid scheme which the United Kingdom is planning to implement as regards the Government of Gibraltar Corporation Tax Reform;

3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the Government of Gibraltar and those of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Case T-215/04, and to bear its own costs;

4. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs as intervener in Case T-211/04;

5. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs as intervener in Cases T-211/04 and T-215/04.

(1) OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.