ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

If, despite everything, the measures in question were to be regarded as constituting State aid, the amounts which are to be recovered are incorrectly calculated. Firstly, the Commission has, on the basis of weak, incomplete and extremely brief reasons, arbitrarily established that the scope of the recovery covers the entire invested capital sum. Secondly, the Commission has, on the basis of incomplete reasons, arbitrarily fixed the amount of the aid elements relating to the guarantees at an unreasonable and unrealistic level. The applicant claims that the lacunae and arbitrariness in the Commission’s reasons makes it almost impossible for the applicant adequately to counter the Commission’s allegations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/28

Action brought on 4 June 2012 — Versalis v Commission

(Case T-241/12)

2012/C 227/48

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Versalis SpA (San Donato Milanese, Italy) (represented by: F. Moretti, L. Nascimbene and M. Siragusa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant submits that the Court should:

— annul the contested measure by which the Commission held that the necessary conditions were present for reopening the procedure for imposing a penalty on Versalis SpA and Eni SpA, and order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against the decision allegedly contained in the letter from the European Commission of 23 April 2012 (D/2012/042050, entitled: COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber — Re-adoption) by which Versalis SpA was informed of the Commission’s decision to proceed with the adoption of a new statement of objections and a new infringement decision which will impose a fine on that company, in connection with Procedure COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber. That letter follows on from the judgment of 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/07, by which the General Court annulled the part of the infringement decision concerning the charge against the applicant — and, jointly and severally with that company, against Eni — relating to the aggravating circumstance of repeat infringements, leading to a recalculation of the fine imposed.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

By its first and only plea, the applicant alleges that the Commission lacked competence to reopen the procedure for imposing a penalty on it with a view to the adoption of the new infringement decision. In particular, the applicant maintains that the Commission’s power to impose penalties on Versalis SpA in connection with the subject-matter of Procedure COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber came to an end following the adoption of the decision of 29 November 2006 (Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final), as annulled and altered by the General Court of the European Union in its judgment of 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/07, at present under appeal before the Court of Justice.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/26

Action brought on 29 May 2012 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — LĺDL MUSIC (LIDL)

(Case T-226/12)

2012/C 227/44

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Schaeffer, M. Wolter and A. Marx, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LĺDL MUSIC, spol. s r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 21 March 2012 (R 2380/2010-1);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘LIDL’ for goods in class 15 — Community trade mark application No 6 861 025

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: National figurative mark and community word mark ‘LÍDL MUSIC’ for goods in class 15

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 15(1) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) and (4) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/27

Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Central Bank of Iran v Council

(Case T-262/12)

2012/C 243/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Central Bank of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 (1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (2), in so far as the measures adopted through such legal acts apply to the applicant;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 were fulfilled.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial review.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its rights to protection of its property and reputation.

(1) Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22)

(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/25

Action brought on 29 June 2012 — Oro Clean Chemie v OHIM — Merz Pharma (PROSEPT)

(Case T-284/12)

2012/C 258/47

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Oro Clean Chemie AG (Fehraltorf, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Ekey, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA (Frankfurt am Main, 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 29 March 2012 in Case R 1053/2011-1;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘PROSEPT’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark application No 8 353 245

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘Pursept’ for goods in Class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/24

Action brought on 18 June 2012 — Manufacturing Support and Procurement Kala Naft v Council

(Case T-263/12)

2012/C 258/44

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Manufacturing Support and Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: F. Esclatine and S. Perrotet, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012;

— Order the Council to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law, six of which are in essence similar to the first six pleas in law raised in Case T-509/10 Manufacturing Support and Procurement Kala Naft v Council. (1)

The applicant raises an additional plea in law alleging that the contested regulation is unlawful by reason of the unlawfulness of the preceding measures which were annulled by the judgment of the General Court in Case T-509/10 Manufacturing Support and Procurement Kala Naft v Council [2012] ECR II-0000.

(1) OJ 2010 C 346, p. 57.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/27

Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Hut.com v OHIM — Intersport France (THE HUT)

(Case T-330/12)

2012/C 295/48

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Hut.com Ltd (Northwich, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intersport France (Longjumeau, France)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 April 2012 in case R 814/2011-2; and

— Order the defendant and the other party before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘THE HUT’, for inter alias services in class 35 — Community trade mark application No 8394091

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: French trade mark registration No 33228708 of the word mark ‘LA HUTTE’, for goods in classes 3, 5, 18, 22, 25 and 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 273/17

Action brought on 9 July 2012 — Message Management v OHIM — Absacker (ABSACKER of Germany)

(Case T-304/12)

2012/C 273/30

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Message Management GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: C. Konle, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Absacker GmbH (Cologne, 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 21 March 2012 in Case R 1028/2011-1 and dismiss the appeal relating to Opposition No B 1663700, which was brought against Community trade mark application No 8753691 filed by the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay the costs;

— in the alternative, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2012 in Case R 1028/2011-1 and dismiss the appeal relating to Opposition No B 1663700, which was brought against Community trade mark application No 8753691 filed by the applicant, in so far as concerns Classes 32 and 33;

— in the further alternative, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2012 in Case R 1028/2011-1 and dismiss the appeal relating to Opposition No B 1663700, which was brought against Community trade mark application No 8753691 filed by the applicant, in so far as concerns Class 33.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark in black and white, which represents an eagle and contains the word elements ‘ABSACKER of Germany’, for goods in Classes 25, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 8 753 691

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Absacker GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national figurative marks in black, orange and white containing the word elements ‘ABSACKER’ for goods in Classes 25, 33 and 43

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the mark applied for was rejected

Pleas in law: Erroneous assumption that the signs are similar and that there is a likelihood of confusion
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/39

Action brought on 1 August 2012 — Leiner v OHIM — Recaro (REVARO)

(Case T-349/12)

2012/C 287/70

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Rudolf Leiner GmbH (Sankt Pölten, Austria) (represented by: W. Emberger, I. Rudnay and L. Emberger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH (Kaiserslautern, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 May 2012 in Case R 482/2011-1 so as to allow the appeal or, alternatively, annul the decision;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Rudolf Leiner GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘REVARO’, for goods in Classes 11, 20 and 24

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration ‘RECARO’ for goods in Classes 10, 12, 14, 20, 25 and 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/16

Action brought on 20 August 2012 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL)

(Case T-374/12)

2012/C 343/27

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck (Ingelmunster, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM (Tortola, British Virgin Islands)

Form of order sought

— annul in its entirety the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 June 2012 in Case R 2551/2010-2;

— order OHIM and Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The international figurative mark incorporating the word element ‘KASTEEL’ for goods in Class 32 — International registration No W 975 635

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National mark ‘CASTEL BEER’ for goods in Class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Breach of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Breach of Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/13

Action brought on 7 August 2012 — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture v OHIM — Gandia Blasco (Armchairs)

(Case T-357/12)

2012/C 311/17

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sachi Premium — Outdoor Furniture, Lda (Estarreja, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gandia Blasco, SA (Valencia, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 27 April 2012 (R 969/2011-3);

— Declare the contested Community Design No 1512633-0003 invalid; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for ‘armchairs, loungers’ — registered Community design No 1512633-0003

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal requested the invalidation of the RCD based on Articles 4 to 9 of Council Regulation No 6/2002; Community design registration No 52113-0001, for ‘armchairs’

Decision of the Invalidity Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the contested Registered Community design invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 5 to 7 of Council Regulation No 6/2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/15

Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-387/12)

2012/C 319/28

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission implementing decision 2012/336/EU of 22 June 2012 (notified under document C(2012) 3838), excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as that decision is the object of the present action;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The scope of the present action is limited to the flat-rate financial corrections applied to the Italian Republic in relation to the aid scheme for growers of processing tomatoes, for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea alleging infringement of Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103) and of Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2005 L 209, p. 1).

By that plea, the applicant challenges the application of the financial corrections made by the contested decision, equal to 2 % of expenditure, submitting that those corrections were applied notwithstanding the proof, acknowledged by the Commission, that no significant financial damage was caused.

In addition, the applicant disputes the quantification of the corrections themselves in so far as their actual determination is disproportionate and manifestly illogical, since they are considerably higher than the potential damage resulting from the conduct attributed to the Italian authorities.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 August 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM

(Case T-377/12)

(2012/C 331/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and É. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Olivar Del Desierto, SL (Almería, Spain)

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 June 2012 in Case R 135/2011-4;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Olivar Del Desierto, SL.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark comprising the word element ‘OLEOSPA’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 35 and 39 — registration application No 7 268 832.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux word marks ‘SPA’ for goods in Classes 3 and 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and opposition rejected.

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s failure to take into account part of the Universal Service Obligation (‘USO’) — induced retail network costs when calculating the amount of profits in the USO reserved area, which are above the level of a reasonable profit, breaches Articles 106(2), 107(1) and 107(3) TFEU and constitutes a manifest error of assessment.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 September 2012 — Klingel v OHIM — Develey (JUNGBORN)

(Case T-401/12)

(2012/C 331/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Robert Klingel OHG (Pforzheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Zeiher, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG (Unterhaching, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 July 2012 in Case R 936/2011-4;

— reject the opposition to the protection of international registration W 1 002 323 — JUNGBORN;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal for a further decision;

— order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Robert Klingel OHG

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘JUNGBORN’ for goods in Classes 29, 30, 32 and 33 — international registration designating the European Union No W 1 002 323

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘BORN’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was allowed in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 41(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009