ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/57

Action brought on 26 September 2014 — Omega v OHIM (Representation of a picture in black and white)

(Case T-695/14)

2014/C 409/78

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Omega International GmbH (Bad Oldesloe, Germany) (represented by J. Becker, 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 Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 July 2014 in Case R 1037/2014-5 and register the mark as a trade mark under application No 1 2 1 74 215;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark representing a picture in black and white for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 2 1 74 215

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: The sign is capable of identifying the goods to consumers with an average degree of interest.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred legally and factually in characterising the agreement entered into by Teva and Servier in 13 June 2006 (the ‘Agreement’) as a restriction by object. As a legal matter, the Commission wrongly characterised as by object restrictions all agreements that are capable of restricting competition instead of only agreements that will unambiguously, by their very nature, reveal a sufficient degree of harm to competition. As a factual matter, the circumstances that prevailed when the Agreement was negotiated, in particular the genuine intellectual property risks that Teva faced, demonstrate that Teva entered into the Agreement to secure a timely market entry and not to receive an inducement in exchange for a delayed entry.
First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s right to access information

The applicant claims that there is no exception to the applicant’s general right to access information under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) with respect to the ‘Operating Plan on Bulgaria’ at issue in the proceedings.

In that regard, the applicant claims that the refusal to grant access to information is not capable of being justified in particular on the ground of protection of deliberations leading to the creation of a document under Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 since the ‘Operating Plan’ was completed.

In addition, the ‘Operating Plan on Bulgaria’ is not a third-party document within the meaning of Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001, since the defendant and the Republic of Bulgaria drew up the plan together. Consequently, the ‘Operating Plan’ did not originate from that Member State for the purposes of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/44

Action brought on 7 November 2014 — Hikari Miso v OHIM — Nishimoto Trading (Hikari)

(Case T-751/14)

(2015/C 007/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hikari Miso Co. Ltd (Suwa-gun, Japan) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nishimoto Trading Co. Ltd (Santa Fe Springs, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration No 9 5 69 501

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 in Case R 2394/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul and/or set aside the contested decision;

— award the costs in favour of the Applicant and reverse the costs award made by the Fourth Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal is based upon errors of law and/or fact;
—

annul Commission Decision in of 15 July 2014 in Case AT.39899 — Licensing of intellectual property rights for football collectibles, which rejected the applicant's complaint that a number of national football governing bodies and players' associations together with Panini S.p.A., Union des Associations Européennes de Football, Fédération Internationale de Football Association, Fédération Française de Football, Associazione Italiana Calciatori, Real Federación Española de Fútbol, and Deutscher Fußball-Bund had breached Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; and
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission's wrong conclusion that the patent settlement concluded between the applicant and Servier restricted competition by object under Article 101(1) TFEU rests on erroneous factual and legal analysis as well as on a wrongful application of the established principles on restrictions by object.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/43

Action brought on 5 November 2014 — Montenegro v OHIM (Shape of a bottle)

(Case T-748/14)

(2015/C 007/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Montenegro Srl (Zola Predosa, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci, 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 No 1 1 62 963 designating the European Union in respect of the tri-dimensional mark representing a shape of a bottle

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 August 2014 in Case R 20/2014-2

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 26/36

Action brought on 6 November 2014 — Segimerus v OHIM — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe (ELGO)

(Case T-750/14)

(2015/C 026/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Segimerus Ltd (Preston, United Kingdom) (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: Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Segimerus Ltd

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ELGO’ — Community trade mark No 1 0 2 92 498

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 August 2014 in Case R 473/2014-4

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division and refer the proceedings back to the Opposition Division;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the proceedings back to the Board of Appeal;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/37

Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v OHIM — Marpefa (Vieta)

(Case T-690/14)

(2014/C 431/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marpefa, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community trade mark No 1 7 90 674

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 July 2014 in Case R 2100/2013-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 15(1) Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/58

Action brought on 6 December 2014 — Skype v OHIM — Sky International (SKYPE)

(Case T-797/14)

(2015/C 046/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Skype (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. Carboni and M. Browne, solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky International AG (Zug, Suisse)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SKYPE’ — Application for registration No 9 7 24 394

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2014 in Case R 1075/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and remit the application to OHIM to allow it to proceed;

— order OHIM and any intervening parties to pay their own costs and applicant’s costs and those of the appeal before the Fourth Board of Appeal in Case R 1075/2013-4 and of Opposition B 1 870 834 before the Opposition Division.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/43

Action brought on 4 December 2014 — Bensarsa v European Commission and EDPS

(Case T-791/14)

(2015/C 034/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Faouzi Bensarsa (Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 25 February 2014 adopted by the Security Directorate;

— Annul the decision of 24 October 2014 impliedly adopted by the EDPS;

— Order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the Commission’s decision of 25 February 2014.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the decision of the EDPS, since it was implied and its reasons could not be deduced either from its context or the decision of 25 February 2014.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (1). The applicant argues that the lack of response from the EDPS constitutes a breach of the duty to inform the data subject, provided for in Articles 46(a) and 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/47

Action brought on 29 December 2014 — Antrax It v OHIM — Vasco Group (Radiators for heating)

(Case T-828/14)

(2015/C 065/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vasco Group BVBA (Dilsen, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

Design at issue: Community design for ‘Radiators for heating’ products — Community design No 593959-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2014 in Case R 1272/2013-3

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Join the present case to the action brought by the applicant against the decision in Case R 1273/2013-3 of OHIM, since that decision is identical to that contested in the present action;

— Annul the contested decision in so far as Community design No 593959-0001 was declared invalid because it lacked individual character and, consequently, declare valid that design without remitting the matter to OHIM for the third time;

— Annul the contested decision of OHIM in so far as it ordered Antrax It Srl to pay the costs;

— Order OHIM and Vasco Group BVBA, jointly and severally, to pay Antrax It Srl, costs, compensation and legal fees, together with any additional sums required by law;

— Order Vasco Group BVBA to pay Antrax It Srl the costs, compensation including technical compensation and legal fees incurred by the latter in the proceedings before OHIM together with any additional sums required by law;

— Declare Article 1(d) of Regulation No 216/96 to be incompatible with Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Breach of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Action brought on 1 December 2014 — Bourdouvali e.a./Council e.a.

(Case T-786/14)

(2015/C 073/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali (Meneou, Cyprus) and 47 other applicants (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Union represented by the European Commission, Eurogroup represented by Council of the European Union, European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 16 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

In the alternative, by way of subsidiary claim, the applicants claim that the Court should:

— find that the European Union and/or the defendant institutions have incurred non-contractual liability;

— determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the recoverable loss actually suffered by the applicants;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants (48 in total) are depositors and/or shareholders and/or bondholders of the Bank of Cyprus Public Company Ltd and/or Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co. Ltd. They seek compensation pursuant to Articles 268, 340(2) and 340(3) TFEU, governing the extra-contractual liability of the EU, for the loss that they have suffered as a result of the measures taken by the defendant institutions imposing a bail-in scheme on the Republic of Cyprus.

The applicants consider that the defendant institutions adopted a bail-in scheme for the Republic of Cyprus which led directly to the loss of their deposits and shareholdings. In the view of the applicants, the bail-in measures adopted by the Republic of Cyprus were introduced solely in order to implement measures adopted by the defendants and were also approved by the defendant institutions.

The applicants consider that the bail-in scheme violates the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The applicants also argue that the bail-in scheme infringes the principle of proportionality, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, and the principle of non-discrimination.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/41

Action brought on 17 December 2014 — Closet Clothing v OHIM — Closed Holding (CLOSET)

(Case T-815/14)

(2015/C 065/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Closet Clothing Co. Ltd (Barnet, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Elmslie, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Closed Holding AG (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘CLOSET’ — Application for registration No 10 802 891

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 in Case R 423/2014-4

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 127/28

Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Monster Energy v OHIM (Representation of a peace symbol)

(Case T-633/14)

(2015/C 127/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States of America) (represented by: P. Brownlow, 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 figurative mark (Representation of a peace symbol) — Application for registration No 11 363 611

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2013 in Case R 1285/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/30

Action brought on 18 December 2014 — Zoofachhandel Züpke and Others v Commission

(Case T-817/14)

(2015/C 089/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Zoofachhandel Züpke GmbH (Wesel, Germany), Zoohaus Bürstadt, Helmut Ofenloch GmbH & Co. KG (Bürstadt, Germany), Zoofachgeschäft — Vogelgroßhandel Import-Export Heinz Marche (Heinsberg, Germany), Rita Bürgel (Uthleben, Germany), Norbert Kass (Altenbeken, Germany) (represented by: C. Correll, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— order the defendant to repair the damage suffered since 1 January 2010 by the applicants as a result of the adoption of a prohibition on importation of wild birds captured in the EU, a prohibition which applies almost worldwide, included in Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 of 23 March 2007 (OJ 2007 L 84, p. 7) and/or in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 of 7 January 2013 (OJ 2013 L 47, p. 1);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants claim, first, that as a result of the continuation, without a critical approach, of the prohibition on importation in its extremely broad geographical scope, the Commission infringed the freedom to carry out an economic activity and, in part, the right to property enjoyed by the applicants. In the light of scientific knowledge acquired in any event since 2010, that prohibition is not capable of being justified by overriding considerations such as the protection of health.

Secondly, the applicants claim that, by maintaining the prohibition on importation, the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and the principles of effective work because it failed to take into consideration the current state of the data or the current state of scientific knowledge. The worldwide prohibition on the importation of wild birds continues to be based on knowledge and assumptions dating from 2005, at a time when avian influenza, originating in Asia, spread for the first time in Europe and where it was necessary to act quickly. According to the applicants, the data collected over the following years do not justify, in any event since 2010, such a geographically wide prohibition on importation. Furthermore, it was clearly necessary in the meantime to make provision for other more effective and much less restrictive methods for the applicants such as consistent surveillance of migrating birds.

Third, the applicants maintain that they suffered an actual and certain damage and that there is a causal link between that damage and the Commission’s unlawful behaviour.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law, infringement of Articles 4, 6 and 13 of the Treaty on European Union, infringement of Article 1 of the Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) concerning the protection of property, breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, and breach of the principle of good faith. — In that regard, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 4 and 13 TEU, which require the European Parliament — like the other EU Institutions — at all times to protect situations where legitimate expectations have been created, within the legal order of the European Union, by any of the persons who are part of that institution. — He also alleges breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of good faith, both of which are general and fundamental principles of EU law acknowledged and affirmed by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which requires compliance with those principles at all times in cases concerning the repayment of sums paid to an individual in good faith. — Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 1 of the Protocol to the ECHR concerning the protection of property, to which reference is made in Article 6 TEU and which has the same binding force as the Treaties, which requires protection of the legitimate expectation engendered in an individual regarding his lawful receipt of monies to which he is entitled.
2.

Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU. That plea is composed of two branches: — First branch, concerning the applicability of the private investor test, which is divided into five parts. — First part, according to which the Commission, without justification or stating reasons, did not take into account numerous documents and pieces of evidence which were duly submitted to it by France and EDF. — Second part, according to which the Commission systematically confused the elements concerning respectively the applicability and the application of the private investor test. — Third part, according to which the Commission wrongly ruled out the applicability of the prudent private investor criterion, solely because, in examining the measure, France had taken into account inter alia considerations relating to its status as a public authority, alongside considerations relating to its status as a shareholder. — Fourth part, according to which the Commission wrongly individuated an obligation on the part of EDF to have a formal business plan in order to justify the applicability of the prudent private investor criterion. — Fifth part, according to which the Commission disregarded the nature and purpose of that measure, its context, the objective it pursued and the rules to which it was subject. — Second branch, concerning the application of the private investor test, which is divided into three parts. — First part, according to which the Commission wrongly concluded that the Oxera Report was not admissible as evidence. — Second part, according to which the Commission’s methodology is vitiated by clear failings. First, the Commission took into account neither the context of the period in question, nor the criteria that investors at that time would have used. Secondly, the Commission’s “tax gift” hypothesis not only constitutes an error of law, but also gave rise to errors in the evaluation of the adequacy of the investment. In the third place, the Commission committed multiple methodological errors, each of which suffices to demonstrate clearly that the private investor criterion was not applied. — Third part, concerning the consequences of the methodological errors committed by the Commission.