ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/34

Action brought on 18 March 2015 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Grup Supeco Maxor (Supeco)

(Case T-126/15)

(2015/C 155/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grup Supeco Maxor, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Supeco’ — Application for registration No 10 884 741

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 in Case R 1112/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 4 December 2014 of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 1112/2014-5 in so far as in upholding in part the appeal brought by the applicant for the trade mark at issue, it overturned the Opposition Division’s decision upholding in part Opposition B 2 0 54 040 and refusing in part Community trade mark No 10 884 741 ‘Supeco’ (figurative); and

— order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/59

Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a radiator grille)

(Case T-88/15)

(2015/C 138/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Gaydon, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community mark indicated as ‘other’ representing a radiator grille — Application for registration No 1 1 8 67 173

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 December 2014 in Case R 1798/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for prima facie lacked distinctive character for the goods and services in question;

— allow the community trade mark application no. 1 1 8 67 173 to proceed to publication;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/35

Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Puma v OHIM — Gemma Group (Device of a jumping animal)

(Case T-159/15)

(2015/C 171/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gemma Group Srl (Cerasolo Ausa, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Device of a jumping animal) — Application for registration No 11 573 474

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 December 2014 in Case R 1207/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/33

Action brought on 30 March 2015 — DHL Express (France) v OHIM — Chronopost (WEBSHIPPIING)

(Case T-142/15)

(2015/C 171/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: DHL Express (France) (Le Bourget, France) (represented by: A. Casalonga, F. Codevelle and C. Bercial Arias, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chronopost (Paris, France)

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 trade mark No 1 909 183

Procedure before OHIM: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 January 2015 in Case R 2425/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare that the rights of the proprietor of Community registration No 1 909 183 WEBSHIPPING are to be revoked and that the mark be deemed not to have had any effects as from the date of the application for revocation, namely 6 July 2012;

— order OHIM and the intervener (if necessary) to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

The imposition of a correction in the amount of EUR 2 1 23 619,66 (‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’) should be annulled for the following reasons: — It infringes Articles 10(2), 10(4) and 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 in so far as the Commission found that the Kingdom of Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations concerning controls on the ground, since it had failed to carry out animal counts during on-the-spot checks in respect of aid pertaining to ‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’. This plea in law is divided into two parts, by which the Kingdom of Spain submits that: a) the obligation to count animals during on-the-spot checks in respect of the aid for the rural development programme of Castilla y León 2007-2013 breaches the principle of the continuity of the livestock density criterion and the principle of equal treatment, and b) the Commission wrongly interpreted Articles 10(2) and 10(4), read in conjunction with Article 14(2), of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 by finding that the Spanish system was not appropriate for verifying compliance with the livestock density criterion. — It infringes Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 and Article 26(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, to the extent that the Kingdom of Spain has databases of cattle, sheep and goats which are reliable and continually updated in accordance with requirements. — It infringes Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 in so far as it is manifestly disproportionate to impose a financial correction of 5 % in respect of the measures concerned by the investigation. The financial correction is disproportionate as, even if the infringement attributed to the Spanish authorities were to be confirmed, the contested decision goes beyond what is appropriate and necessary to protect the financial interests of the Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/35

Action brought on 08 April 2015— EFB/Commission

(Case T-174/15)

(2015/C 205/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) (Liège, Belgium) (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action admissible and well-founded;

— order the European Commission to pay the applicant 36 457,79 EUR;

— condemn the European Commission to pay all the legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under its claim, the applicant requests the General Court to declare that the European Commission has breached its contractual obligations under the Contract of 24 January 2007 on the project for European Federation of Biotechnology Latin American Action on Functional Foods, with reference CT-2006-043158 (‘the Contract’), and claims for payment of the final amount of 36 457,79 EUR.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment concerning several eligible costs which constitutes an error in the appreciation of proof contrary to Article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code.

2. Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles II.20 and II.6 of the General Conditions of the Contract.

3. Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code and the principle of execution of contract in good faith.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a lack of motivation from the European Commission in the refusal to reimburse some costs.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the protection of legitimate expectations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/41

Action brought on 9 April 2015 — Grandel v OHIM — The Colomer Group Spain (Beautygen)

(Case T-177/15)

(2015/C 198/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Grandel GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Dollinger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Colomer Group Spain, SL (Cornellá de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Beautygen’ — Application No 11 623 105

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 February 2015 in Case R 1430/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the Commission erroneously refused to rely on a comparator analysis, which would have led to the finding of absence of aid to the applicants. In the alternative, the Commission failed to attribute appropriate value to marketing services, wrongly dismissed the rationale behind the airport’s decision to purchase such services, erroneously dismissed the possibility that part of the marketing services may have been purchased for general interest purposes, failed to assess the marketing agreements from the separate market economy operator viewpoints of the owner and the operator of the airport, based its conclusions on incomplete and inappropriate data for its calculation of the airport’s profitability, applied an excessively short time horizon, wrongly based its assessment on agreed routes only, and disregarded the network externalities that the airport could expect to gain from its relationship with Ryanair. In any event, even if there was an advantage to the applicants, the Commission failed to establish that the advantage was selective.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/40

Action brought on 11 May 2015 — Cofra v OHIM — Armand Thiery (1841)

(Case T-233/15)

(2015/C 213/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Cofra Holding AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Armand Thiery SAS (Levallois Perret, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘1841’ — Community trade mark No 9 119 553

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2015 in Case R 805/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and the other party to the appeal proceedings, should it intervene in the present proceedings, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 40(6) of Regulation No 2868/95;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/44

Action brought on 8 June 2015 — Atlas v OHIM (EFEKT PERLENIA)

(Case T-298/15)

(2015/C 245/54)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Atlas sp. z. o.o. (Łódz, Poland) (represented by R. Rumpel, 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 figurative mark containing the word elements ‘EFEKT PERLENIA’ — Application for registration No 12 668 125.

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2015 in Case R 2352/2014-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that Court should:

— declare the action to be well founded;

— set aside the contested decision in so far as it rejected the application for registration;

— amend the contested decision in such a way that the mark may be registered for all of the goods and services claimed;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/45

Action brought on 18 May 2015 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of bars with four circles)

(Case T-240/15)

(2015/C 236/60)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, 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 bars with four circles) — Application for registration No 12 551 867

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 March 2015 in Case R 1602/2014-1

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision because it is unlawful and infringes the legal provisions in force concerning the Community trade mark; deliver a judgment in accordance with the claims set out in the application on the basis of the sufficient intrinsic distinctiveness of the three-dimensional mark applied for; order the registration of the application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark No 12 551 867, for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30 of the International Classification in its entirety;

— order the party opposing that claim to pay the costs or expenses of the proceedings and to reimburse the appeal fees paid to OHIM and the corresponding expenses.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/39

Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Axa Mediterranean Holding v Commission

(Case T-258/15)

(2015/C 245/46)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Axa Mediterranean Holding, S.A (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, D. Armesto Macías and A. Balcells Cartagena, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it declares that the new administrative interpretation of Article 12 TRLIS adopted by the Spanish administration must be regarded as state aid which is incompatible with the interior market;

— annul Article 4(1) of the contested decision in so far as it requires the Kingdom of Spain to put an end to the alleged aid scheme as described in Article 1;

— annul Article 4(2)(3)(4) and (5) of the contested decision in so far as it requires the Kingdom of Spain to recover the amounts considered by the Commission to be State aid;

— in the alternative, limit the scope of the recovery obligation imposed on the Kingdom of Spain by Article 4(2) of the contested decision in the same terms as in the first and second decisions; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in the present proceedings is the same as in cases T-12/15, Banco de Santander and Santusa v Commission and T-252/15 Ferrovial SA and Others v Commission.

The pleas in law and the main arguments put forward are similar to those relied on in those cases.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/37

Action brought on 18 May 2015 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Dyado Liben OOD (Casale Fresco)

(Case T-254/15)

(2015/C 245/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. oHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, Lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dyado Liben OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant/Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Casale Fresco’ — Application No 010 886 604

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11.03.2015 in Case R 1138/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/37

Action brought on 23 June 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM (THE SNACK COMPANY)

(Case T-331/15)

(2015/C 262/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, 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 figurative mark containing the word elements ‘THE SNACK COMPANY’ — Application for registration No 12 173 852

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 March 2015 in Case R 954/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant registration of the trade mark applied for;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of the principle of equal treatment;
—

The contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment when distinguishing between ‘usual’ and ‘additional’ service provided by the applicants’ partners/shareholders during the project in question, as the Agency manifestly disregarded the nature of the services provided by the partners, the clear will of the applicant’s general assembly to address and regulate such services as it considered them to constitute a distinct category that was not falling under the provisions of the Statutes, and the fact that the services provided by the partners in the project in question met all the requirements of the aforementioned decision of the general assembly.
Case T-308/15: Action brought on 3 June 2015 — Reisenthel v OHIM (keep it easy)

Action brought on 3 June 2015 — Reisenthel v OHIM (keep it easy)

(Case T-308/15)

Parties

Applicant: Peter Reisenthel (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: E. Aliki Busse, 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 word mark ‘keep it easy’ — Application No 12 877 924

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2015 in Case R 2659/2014-5

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 294/81

Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Choice v OHIM (Choice chocolate & ice cream)

(Case T-361/15)

(2015/C 294/98)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Choice sp. z o.o. (Legnica, Poland) (represented by: T. Mielke, 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 figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Choice chocolate & ice cream’ — Application for registration No 1 2 6 44 423

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2015 in Case R 2221/2014-5

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 279/50

Action brought on 1 July 2015 — Dr Vita v OHIM (69)

(Case T-360/15)

(2015/C 279/63)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Dr Vita sp. z o.o. (Olsztyn, Poland) (represented by: D. Rzążewska, 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 figurative mark including the number ‘69’ — Application No 12 794 566

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 April 2015 in Case R 2513/2014-5

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 302/65

Action brought on 15 July 2015 — Loops v OHIM (Shape of a toothbrush)

(Case T-385/15)

(2015/C 302/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Loops, LLC (Ferndale, United States) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the tridimensional mark (Shape of a toothbrush) — Application for registration No 1 187 189

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2015 in Case R 1917/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— admit the publication in the classes requested of the international registration number 1 187 198;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs which were due within the course of the Appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, being a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFUE, seeking a declaration of inapplicability of Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ L 272, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures against Iran. The applicants bring forward that the criteria adopted by the said Decision and Regulation, first, lack an adequate legal basis, second, lack an adequate factual basis, in that the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (‘IRISL’) has been found by the General Court in its judgment in Case T-489/10, IRISL v Council, ECLI:EU:T:2013:453, not to have breached the restrictive measures imposed by the Security Council, third, breach the applicants’ right to an effective remedy and the principles of ne bis in idem and res judicata, fourth, discriminate against entities alleged to be owned or controlled by IRISL without justification or proportionality, fifth, violate the applicants’ right of defence, sixth, violate, without justification or proportion, other of the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to property, to conduct a business and to respect for their reputation, and, seventh, entail an abuse of power by the Council, in that it has simply re-applied the same restrictive measures to the applicants in circumvention of a binding judgment of the General Court.