ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 339/21

Action brought on 22 July 2014 — provima Warenhandels v OHIM — Renfro (HOT SOX)

(Case T-543/14)

2014/C 339/26

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: provima Warenhandels GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Croll and H. Prange, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Renfro Corp. (Mount Airy, United States)

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 13 May 2014 in Case R 1859/2013-2 concerning the international trade mark in the European Union No 0962191 and to alter it to the effect that the appeal is well founded and the application for a declaration of invalidity is granted;

— Order the defendant and, where appropriate, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: International registration of the word mark ‘HOT SOX’ — International registration No 9 62 191

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Renfro Corp.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: provima Warenhandels GmbH

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 158 in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 329/17

Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)

(Case T-388/14)

2014/C 329/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 given in Case R 1853/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MARKETINGCLOUD’ for services in Classes 35 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 9 79 417

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/24

Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Fútbol Club Barcelona v OHIM — Kule (KULE)

(Case T-614/14)

2014/C 351/31

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Fútbol Club Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kule LLC (New York, United States)

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 June 2014 given in Case R 2375/2013-4.

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 ‘KULE’ for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 9 917 097

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trademarks and well-known trade mark for the word ‘CULE’

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 42(2) and (3) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/9

Action brought on 23 July 2014 — CW v Council

(Case T-224/14)

2014/C 351/11

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CW (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Tekari, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/49/CFSP of 30 January 2014 applying Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— order that as a result of the annulment of the contested decision, the applicant shall be deemed never to have been entered in the list of persons covered by the asset freeze and that no measure or decision of the Council may mention his name as being subject to an asset freeze;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay damages in the amount of EUR 1 00 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary and material harm suffered by the applicant;

— order the Council of the European Union to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant which must be equitably determined by having regard to the parties’ circumstances and to the workload resulting from the management of such a case.

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 an absence of legal basis for Decision 2014/49/CFSP (1), inasmuch as it is based on a consideration extraneous to that set out in Article 1 of Decision 2011/72/CFSP (2) and inasmuch as, in any event, Decision 2011/72/CFSP, which constitutes the legal basis for the former decision, is not consistent with EU law governing targeted sanctions.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property, in so far as the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant amount to an unjustified restriction of his right to property.

(1) Council Decision 2014/49/CFSP of 30 January 2014 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2014 L 28, p. 38).

(2) Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 62).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/16

Action brought on 8 August 2014 — Mechadyne International v OHIM (FlexValve)

(Case T-588/14)

2014/C 361/21

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mechadyne International Ltd (Kirtlington, United Kingdom) (represented by S. von Petersdorff-Campen and E. Schaper, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 June 2014 in Case R 2435/2013-4;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark containing the word element ‘FlexValve’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 12 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 1 1 2 74 677

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of the right to be heard;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 351/13

Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Bach Flower Remedies (MURNAUERS Bachblüten)

(Case T-534/14)

2014/C 351/15

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH (Egelsbach, Germany) (represented by: F. Traub and H. Daniel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bach Flower Remedies Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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 5 May 2014 in Case R 2041/2012-2;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including the word elements ‘MURNAUERS Bachblüten’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 30 — Community trade mark registration No 9 7 49 847

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bach Flower Remedies Ltd

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community figurative marks including the word element ‘Bach’, national word mark ‘Bach’ and the unregistered mark used in the course of business ‘BACH’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 42 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/25

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Souruh v Council

(Case T-612/14)

2014/C 361/38

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

— in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council (1).

(1) OJ C 290, p. 13.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 380/15

Action brought on 28 July 2014 — Ahmed Mohamed Saleh Baeshen v OHIM

(Case T-564/14)

2014/C 380/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ahmed Mohamed Saleh Baeshen & Co. (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, Barrister)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 687/2014-2;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘TEAVANA’ for services in Class 35 — Community trade mark No 4 0 98 588

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, Teavana Corporation

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the CTM proprietor’s right in respect of Community trade mark No 4 0 98 588 in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal as inadmissible

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 51(1)(a), 59 and 75 CTMR.
—

annul the decision contained in the letter from the European Commission, Directorate-General for Budget, No. BUDG/B/03MV D (2014) 1782918, of 2 June 2014 in which, first, the applicant is declared to be financially responsible for the loss of traditional own resources for the EU budget, because sugar was imported outside the system of tariff import quotas and that the resources for that importation were not determined and in which, second, the applicant is ordered to make available to the EU budget an amount equivalent to the loss of traditional own resources amounting, in the event that the import licence was used to its fullest extent, to EUR 1 2 57 000;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 August 2014 — NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme v OHIM — Schütz (X-Windwerk)

(Case T-649/14)

(2014/C 395/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Mach, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Schütz GmbH & Co. KGaA (Selters, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 May 2014 in Case R 978/2013-1

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘X-Windwerk’ for services in Classes 39, 40 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 10 719 466

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘Wind Werk’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 37 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the application for the Community trade mark was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
1.

First plea in law: failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and the non-retroactivity of legislation — According to the applicant, the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity, as applied to Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area (OJ 2011 L 306, p. 1) and Decision 2012/678/EU, mean that facts arising before 13 December 2011 cannot be the subject of an investigation because, at that date, the facts at issue could not be penalised. The only data in respect of which a penalty could be applied are those notified in April 2012. In fact, the period covered by the investigation must relate only to data to be found in notifications made after 2012. The period covered by the investigation must relate only to data in the notifications made after 2012 where those data relate to facts that occurred after December 2011, the date on which the Regulation No 1173/2011 entered into force. Consequently there is no legal basis for an investigation in relation to facts that occurred before 13 December 2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/59

Action brought on 29 September 2014 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Associated Newspapers (METRO)

(Case T-697/14)

2014/C 409/80

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Associated Newspapers Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 July 2014 in Case R 606/2013-5, in so far as it annulled the Opposition Division’s decision of 4 March 2013 concerning the opposition against Community trade mark application No 7 79 116‘METRO’ and referred the case back to the Opposition Division for examination and a decision on the case;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark including the word element METRO for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 7 79 116

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘METRO’

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the case was referred back to the Opposition Division

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/62

Action brought on 2 October 2014 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (DetergentOptimiser)

(Case T-707/14)

2014/C 409/83

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter and M. Neuner, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 July 2014 given in Case R 172/2014-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred before the Office.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DetergentOptimiser’ for goods in Class 7 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 49 559

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction Article 7(2) of Regulation No. 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 448/36

Action brought on 27 October 2014 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Home Focus (MoMo Monsters)

(Case T-736/14)

(2014/C 448/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Home Focus Development Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: The word mark ‘MoMo Monsters’ — Community trade mark application No 1 0 5 13 372

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2014 in Case R 1167/2013-2

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 409/63

Action brought on 6 October 2014 — Herbert Smith Freehills v Council

(Case T-710/14)

2014/C 409/84

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Herbert Smith Freehills LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Wytinck, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision 18/c/01/14 of the Council of the European Union of 23 July 2014; and

— order the Council to pay the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Council’s Decision 18/c/01/14 of 24 July 2014 whereby the Council refused the applicant’s confirmatory application for access under Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) to certain documents related to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (2).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 in that i) not all documents identified by the Council fall within the scope of the exception relating to the protection of legal advice; and ii) there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents identified pursuant to the applicant’s access to documents request.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in so far as it did not provide partial access to the documents requested.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment with regard to the scope of the applicant’s request for access to documents.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/39

Action brought on 26 September 2014 — Novar v OHIM

(Case T-726/14)

(2015/C 007/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Novar GmbH (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: R. Weede, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant Office to pay EUR 2 498,00 plus interest in the amount of 5 percentage points over the base rate for the period since the legal proceedings began;

— order the defendant Office to pay the costs, including the costs of representing the applicant in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

Plea in law: Non-contractual liability in accordance with Article 118(3) of Regulation No 207/2009

The applicant asserts that there has been a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals and that there is a causal link between action and damage. The applicant argues that the unlawful action resides in the decision of 14 May 2013 rejecting the opposition. A sufficiently serious breach of law exists because, in the opposition decision of 14 May 2013, the Office assumed — contrary to the information contained in the letter of 22 June 2012 regarding the documents to be submitted in trade mark opposition proceedings B002027251 for the substantiation of earlier rights — additional requirements for proving the earlier rights and for that reason failed to take account of the applicant’s earlier rights. That infringement was the cause of the additional legal costs required to be incurred by the applicant in the context of the appeal against the decision of 14 May 2013, which was remedied by the decision of the Opposition Division of 17 October 2013.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission exercised its jurisdiction incorrectly Even if the Commission had the jurisdiction to issue the contested decision and, in issuing that decision, it also acted in accordance with the principle of legal certainty (quod non), the Slovak Republic submits that, in that event, did not exercise that jurisdiction correctly. First, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in so far as it demands payment of the funds from the Slovak Republic despite the fact that the loss of traditional own resources did not occur at all, or did not occur as a direct result of the events which the Commission attributes to the Slovak Republic. Secondly, the Commission infringed the Slovak Republic’s rights of the defence and the principle of sound administration.