ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/42

Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Permapore v OHIM — José Joaquim Oliveira II - Jardins & Afins (Terraway)

(Case T-277/15)

(2015/C 245/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Permapore Ltd (Nenagh, Tipperary, Ireland) (represented by: J. Sales, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins Lda (Grijó, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark including the word element ‘Terraway’ — Application for registration No 11 988 301

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 in Case R 2496/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM and substitute it with one which makes a ruling or which orders that a ruling be made — at length — on the substantive/material issues, and not just the issue of whether the court fee was paid in good time;

Pleas in law

— The applicant claims that he paid the fee for appeal, provided for in Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009, on 20 November 2014;
—

The applicant claims, inter alia, that the Commission was aware, or should in any event have been aware, of the involvement of Russian engineers at the time of signing the ULTRA (‘Ultra portable augmented reality for industrial maintenance applications’), IMPROVE (‘Improving Display and Rendering Technology for Virtual Environments’) and CINeSPACE (‘Experiencing urban film and cultural heritage while on-the-move’) grant agreements. It adds that recovery of the sum claimed in those circumstances is an abuse of power.
Case T-324/15: Action brought on 23 June 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Bagpax Cargo Systems (BAG PAX)

Action brought on 23 June 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Bagpax Cargo Systems (BAG PAX)

(Case T-324/15)

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bagpax Cargo Systems e.K. (Saarlouis, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘BAG PAX’

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 April 2015 in Case R 1971/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Case T-305/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Airdata v Commission

Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Airdata v Commission

(Case T-305/15)

Parties

Applicant: Airdata AG (Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany) (represented by: E. Niitväli and M. Reysen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision C(2014) 4443 final, published on 13 March 2015, dated 2 July 2014, adopted in matter M.7018 Telefonica Deutschland/E-Plus pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 ( 1 ), and

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision suffers from the breach of an important procedural duty as defined in Article 296(2) TFEU, as the Commission has failed to provide adequate reason for the measure it has adopted. — The Commission failed to provide sufficiently clear and comprehensive reasons for its decision to accept certain commitments aimed at offsetting the serious competitive concerns it had identified in the course of the merger control investigation. The decision failed in particular to provide reasons why the Commission assumes that a third party beneficiary of the commitments would be able to effectively compete with the assets in question.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed in its duty to correctly apply the law as its decision suffers from a substantively incorrect application of EU merger control provisions. — Parts of the commitments will most likely not be implemented, and parts will merely preserve the status quo ante, but they won’t contribute to an increased intensity of competition. The remaining parts are insufficient to offset the serious harm to competition caused by the transaction in question.

( 1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/44

Action brought on 24 June 2015 — Certuss Dampfautomaten v OHIM — Universal for Engineering Industries (Universal 1800 TC)

(Case T-329/15)

(2015/C 279/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Certuss Dampfautomaten GmbH & Co. KG (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Sroka, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Universal for Engineering Industries SAE (Giza, Egypt)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Universal 1800 TC’ — Application for registration No 10 632 503

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 April 2015 in Case R 1303/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/46

Action brought on 27 June 2015 — Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen v OHIM (Shape of a service station)

(Case T-339/15)

(2015/C 279/57)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (Płock, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of a service station) — Application No 12 411 071

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2015 in Case R 2245/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and before the Court.

Plea in law
—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432 of 13 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 47) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/427 of 13 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 1), insofar those measures apply to the applicant;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/82

Action brought on 1 July 2015 — Lacamanda Group v OHIM — Woolley (HENLEY)

(Case T-362/15)

(2015/C 294/99)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Lacamanda Group Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Scott, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nigel Woolley (Braceborough, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘HENLEY’ — Community trade mark No 4 7 43 563

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2015 in Case R 2255/2012-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/53

Action brought on 9 July 2015 — Preferisco Foods v OHIM — Piccardo & Savore' (PREFERISCO)

(Case T-371/15)

(2015/C 311/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Preferisco Foods Ltd (Vancouver, Canada) (represented by: G. Macias Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal, E. Armero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Piccardo & Savore' Srl (Chiusavecchia, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘PREFERISCO’ — Community trade mark No 10 974 616

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2015 in Case R 2598/2013-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM dated 15 April 2015, in Case R-2598/2013-2, in particular regarding the rejection of the CTM application No 10974616 ‘PREFERISCO’ for the goods applied for in classes 29 and 30;

— order that costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant, including the costs those incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM.

Plea in law
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested ECB decisions do not meet the proportionality test, since the promotion of the smooth operation of payment systems provided for in Article 127 (2) TFEU is one of the four basic tasks to be carried out through the Eurosystem, while the extension of additional ELA to Greek banks with its potential minute effects on the implementation of the single monetary policy would have been less disruptive t the objectives of the ECB.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/36

Action brought on 24 July 2015 — Globo Comunicação e Participações v OHIM (‘PLIM PLIM’ sounds)

(Case T-408/15)

(2015/C 320/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A. (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (represented by: E. Gaspar, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community sound mark ‘PLIM PLIM’ — Application for registration No 12 826 368

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 May 2015 in Case R 2945/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that Community trade mark No 12 826 368 is valid for the designation of Classes 9, 38 and 41;

— annul the contested decision in part, in so far as it rejected the Community trade mark application;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law: infringement of Article 41(1) in conjunction with Articles 56(3) and 60(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 and of the principle of sincere cooperation, by carrying out an appraisal of the project in a way going beyond the selection criteria laid down by the Monitoring Committee even though those criteria had not been questioned by the Commission at the time of their adoption, and infringement of Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, by seriously exceeding the time-limit for appraising the project.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/33

Action brought on 14 August 2015 — Capella v OHIM — Abus (APUS)

(Case T-473/15)

(2015/C 328/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Capella EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: F. Henkel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Abus August Bremicker Söhne KG (Wetter/Volmarstein, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Capella EOOD

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘APUS’ — Application for registration No 10 415 511

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2015 in Case R 117/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/29

Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Foodcare v OHIM — Michalczewski (T.G.R. ENERGY DRINK)

(Case T-456/15)

(2015/C 328/26)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Foodcare sp. z o.o. (Zabierzów, Poland) (represented by: A. Matusik, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dariusz Michalczewski (Gdańsk, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘T.G.R. ENERGY DRINK’ –Community trade mark No 5 689 237

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2015 in Case R 265/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the contested decision invalid in its entirety;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/14

Action brought on 28 July 2015 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v OHIM — GAP (ITM) (GAPPoL)

(Case T-411/15)

(2015/C 328/13)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: GAP (ITM), Inc. (San Francisco, United States of America)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘GAPPoL’ — Application No 8 346 165

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2015 in Case R 686/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision;

— give a final decision by amending the decision of the Board of Appeal by rejecting the opposition also in regard to the goods in Classes 20 and 25;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 59 and 64(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) (‘Regulation No 207/2009’);

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 50(2)(h) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1) (‘Regulation No 2868/95’);

— Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 50(2)(g) of Regulation No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/43

Action brought on 26 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHMI — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SNAP)

(Case T-489/15)

(2015/C 337/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyrus Wellness Consulting (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VIEWTY SNAP’ — Application for Registration No 9 125 055

Procedure before OHIM:Opposition proceedings

Contested decision:Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 June 2015 in Case R 1938/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/48

Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v OHIM (Limbic® Map)

(Case T-513/15)

(2015/C 354/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze und G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Limbic® Map’ — Application for registration No 12 316 411

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2015 in Case R 1973/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision concerning the application for registration of the Community trade mark 012 316 411 Limbic® Map;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council does not have the competence to list the applicant on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures, his name being mentioned neither in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1970 (2011) and 1973 (2011) nor in its amending Resolutions 2213 (2015) and 2214 (2015).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/39

Action brought on 15 September 2015 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID)

(Case T-535/15)

(2015/C 371/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, J. Bärenfänger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ÏD Group (Roubaix, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Fashion ID’ — Application for registration No 10 638 658

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2015 in Case R 2470/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision as far as it upheld the decision of the Opposition Division to reject the CTM No 10 638 658 with regard to the opposed goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35;

— annul the corresponding decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 28 July 2014 (Case B 2 038 399) as far as the Opposition Division upheld the opposition to reject the CTM No 10 638 658;

— dismiss the Opposition dated 26 June 2012 against the CTM No 10 638 658 in its entirety;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/44

Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-507/15)

(2015/C 354/54)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) No 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 4076) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the amounts of EUR 1 42 446,05 and EUR 5 5 3 75 053,74 paid by the accredited paying agency of the Republic of Poland;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law: infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (1) and breach of the principle of legal certainty and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations by applying a financial correction on the basis of incorrect findings of fact and incorrect interpretation of the law, even though the expenditure was carried out by the Polish authorities in accordance with the EU provisions.

2. Second plea in law: infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 by applying a flat-rate correction in an amount grossly disproportionate to the risk of possible financial loss to the EU budget.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/48

Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Diesel v OHIM — Sprinter megacentros del deporte (curved and angled line)

(Case T-521/15)

(2015/C 381/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy) (represented by: A. Gaul, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL (Elche, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark (Representation of a curved or angled line) — Application for registration No 11 404 019

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2015 in Case R 3291/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/37

Action brought on 8 September 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (START UP INITIATIVE)

(Case T-529/15)

(2015/C 371/38)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin (TO), Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and F. Braga, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘START UP INITIATIVE’ — Application for registration No 13 011 838

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2015 in Case R 2777/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that there was a breach and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— declare that there was a breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs and fees incurred for the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;