ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/66

Action brought on 22 November 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — English Cut (The English Cut)

(Case T-515/12)

2013/C 26/131

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela, J. Rivas Zurdo and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The English Cut, SL (Malaga, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General 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 September 2012 in Case R 1673/2011-1, and declare that, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, the action brought by the opponent before OHIM should have been upheld and the decision of the Opposition Division to grant Community trade mark application No 8 868 747‘The English Cut’ (word mark) should have been annulled;

— order the defendant and the other party opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The English Cut, SL

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘The English Cut’, for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 8 868 747

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community word and figurative marks ‘El Corte Inglés’ for goods in Classes 25 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 8(5) of that regulation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/57

Action brought on 16 November 2012 — European Drinks v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (DRACULA BITE)

(Case T-496/12)

2013/C 26/116

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: European Drinks SA (Ștei, Romania) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl (Pleasa, Romania)

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 6 September 2012 in case R 682/2011-4; and

— Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant.

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 figurative mark ‘DRACULA BITE’, for goods and services in classes 33, 35 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 7588288

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Romanian trade mark registration No 34847 of the figurative mark ‘Dracula’, for goods and services in classes 33 and 35

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 Articles 42(2) and 42(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/16

Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Ziegler v Commission

(Case T-539/12)

2013/C 55/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ziegler SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Bellis, M. Favart and A. Bailleux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

— Hold that the European Commission has incurred the non-contractual liability of the European Union as regards the applicant;

— Order the European Union to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 1 472 000, together with interest from 11 March 2008 until payment in full, and the sum of EUR 112 872,50 per year from 11 March 2008, together with interest until payment in full;

— Order the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The damage in respect of which the applicant seeks compensation from the European Union includes two separate heads of claim.

Firstly, the applicant claims that it has suffered a loss by reason of the fine of EUR 9 200 000, together with interest at the rate of 7.60 % per annum, imposed on it by the Commission’s decision of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services, for an infringement for which the European Union was partly responsible. The damage allegedly caused to the applicant stems from dual unlawful acts by the European Union:

— On the one hand, by making reimbursement of the removals costs to its officials subject to their obtaining three different quotes for removals and by refraining from exercising any control over the carrying out of that obligation when it was perfectly well aware of the lapses to which that practice gave rise, the European Union created a regulatory context favourable to the commission of the infringement of Article 101 TFEU for which the removal companies were then penalised. In so doing, the European Union failed in its duty of care and infringed the fundamental right of the applicant to sound administration.

— On the other, by seeking cover quotes from the applicant, the European Union officials have, as agents, directly incited the applicant to commit the infringement for which it has been penalised. Through its officials, the European Union thus contributed to the infringement of Article 101 TFEU which it then penalised and, moreover, disregarded the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.

Secondly, since the adoption of the decision of 11 March 2008, the applicant is suffering a significant loss of earnings because, as the practice of cover quotes has not ceased, its refusal to respond favourably to such requests has the effect of removing it from the markets concerned, to the extent that the applicant no longer supplies removal services to more than a very limited number of officials of the European institutions. It is a failure on the part of the European Union to fulfil its duty of care which is the cause of the loss thus suffered by the applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/23

Action brought on 3 December 2012 — Recaro v OHIM — Certino Mode (RECARO)

(Case T-524/12)

2013/C 32/37

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH (Kaiserslautern, Germany) (represented by: J. Weiser, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Certino Mode, SL (Elche, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Alter the contested decision so that the appeal brought by the intervener is rejected and CTM No 734343 ‘RECARO’ is revoked in its entirety;

— 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 6 September 2012 in case R 1761/2011-1; and

— Order OHIM and, as the case may be, the intervener to pay the costs for these proceedings and of the appeal procedure before OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘RECARO’, for goods in classes 10 and 25 — Community trade mark registration No 734343

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

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

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the Community trade mark

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

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 15 of Council Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 76(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 50(1) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/19

Action brought on 21 December 2012 — bachmeier v OHIM (oto-soft)

(Case T-550/12)

2013/C 55/34

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: bachmeier GmbH & Co. KG (Ramsau b. Berchtesgaden, Germany) (represented by D. Donath, 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 18 October 2012 in Case R 1784/2011-1;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘oto-soft’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 7, 8, 10, 41 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 9 836 081

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/18

Action brought on 18 December 2012 — Grau Ferrer v OHIM — Rubio Ferrer (Bugui va)

(Case T-543/12)

2013/C 55/31

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Xavier Grau Ferrer (Caldes de Montbui, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Juan Cándido Rubio Ferrer (Xeraco, Spain), Alberto Rubio Ferrer (Xeraco)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 11 October 2012 in Cases R 274/2011-4 and R 520/2011-4, in accordance with Article 8(1)(a) and (b) and Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009, and consequently refuse registration of figurative Community trade mark No 7 338 031‘Bugui va’ in full, for all the goods and services applied for (Classes 31, 35 and 39);

— order OHIM to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 87(2) CTMR.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Juan Cándido Rubio Ferrer and Alberto Rubio Ferrer

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with the word element ‘Bugui va’ for goods and services in Classes 31, 35 and 39 — application for Community trade mark No 7 338 031

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark with the word element ‘Bugui’ and figurative Community trade mark with the word element ‘BUGUI De la huerta a casa FRUITS FROM THE SPANISH VEGETABLE GARDEN’, for goods and services in classes 31, 32 and 39

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and opposition rejected in full

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) and of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009, and infringement of Article 48 of Regulation No 2868/95
—

In consequence, grant the form of order sought by the applicant at first instance and, accordingly, — Principally, order that, with retroactive effect to the effective date of the dismissal decision, the applicant be restored to her post of administrator at grade A5, step 2 and order payment of the amounts due to her for that entire period, together with late-payment interest at the ECB rate increased by two points; — In the alternative, award the sum corresponding to the remuneration which she would have received since the effective date of her dismissal in August 2010 until the month in which she reaches retirement age, in July 2040, and put into order accordingly the applicant’s pension rights; — In any event, award the sum of EUR 65 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered; — Order the defendant to pay all the costs;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/22

Action brought on 27 December 2012 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council

(Case T-565/12)

2013/C 55/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: National Iranian Tanker Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: R. Chandrasekera, S. Ashley, C. Murphy, Solicitors, and M. Lester, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 (2), in so far as those measure apply to the applicant;

— Order the annulment to take effect immediately and not be suspended;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s 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 none of the legal criteria for listing the applicants is fulfilled, the Council erred manifestly in considering that any of the criteria for listing was fulfilled, and there is no valid legal or factual basis for its designation.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for designating the applicant.

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

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

(1) Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58)

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/24

Action brought on 9 January 2013 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Irega (MEGO)

(Case T-11/13)

2013/C 55/43

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Tegometall International AG (Lengwil, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Timmann and E. Schaper, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Irega AG (Zuchwil, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 October 2012 in Case R 1522/2011-1 and declare Community trade mark No 3 786 134‘MEGO’ invalid; in the alternative, annul that decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal for reassessment;

— order the intervener and OHIM to pay the costs of the invalidity proceedings, the appeal proceedings and the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘MEGO’ for goods in Classes 6 and 20 — Community trade mark No 3 786 134

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Irega AG

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the national, Community and international registrations of the word mark ‘TEGO’, the national and Community trade marks ‘TEGOMETALL’ and the national, Community and international registrations of the figurative mark, which includes the word element ‘Tegometall’, for goods in Classes 6, 20 and 21

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Incorrect application of the principle of res judicata

— Infringement of Article 34(2) and Article 8(2) of Regulation No 207/2009
‘Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Bilbaina de Alquitranes and Others v Commission

(Case T-689/13)

2014/C 85/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA (Luchana-Baracaldo, Vizcaya, Spain); Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic); Industrial Química del Nalón, SA (Oviedo, Spain); Koppers Denmark A/S (Nyborg, Denmark); Koppers UK Ltd (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom); Koppers Netherlands BV (Uithoorn, Netherlands); Rütgers basic aromatics GmbH (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany); Rütgers Belgium NV (Zelzate, Belgium); Rütgers Poland Sp. z o.o. (Kędzierzyn-Koźle, Poland); Bawtry Carbon International Ltd (Doncaster, United Kingdom); Grupo Ferroatlántica, SA (Madrid, Spain); SGL Carbon GmbH (Meitingen, Germany); SGL Carbon GmbH (Bad Goisern am Hallstättersee, Austria); SGL Carbon (Passy, France); SGL Carbon, SA (La Coruña, Spain); SGL Carbon Polska S.A. (Racibórz, Poland); ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg, Germany); and Tokai Erftcarbon GmbH (Grevenbroich, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the Application admissible and well-founded;

— Annul the Contested Act as far as it classifies CTPHT as H400 and H410;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 of 2 October 2013 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (‘the CLP Regulation’) (OJ L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classifies pitch, coal tar, high temp CAS Number 65996-93-2 (‘CTPHT’) as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) (the ‘Contested Act’).

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law:

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested act is unlawful because it infringes the REACH and CLP provisions regarding classification of substances as toxic for the aquatic environment and studies which must be accepted for this purpose, as well as the principle of equal treatment, in so far as it rejected studies performed according to REACH and OECD guidelines and it required testing without any accepted standardised method.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested act is unlawful because it is based on a manifest error of assessment since it failed to take into consideration the inert inherent properties of CTPHT which have notably a significant impact on UV light testing and the application of the summation method; it established M-factors for PAH constituents without a proper assessment of the studies relied upon and it rejected information provided by the Applicants without valid justification.
3.

Third plea in law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU with regard to the compatibility of the members’ conduct with the principle of the private investor operating in a market economy by reason of an obviously incorrect assessment of the facts in respect of the decision-making of the members before recapitalising and putting measure No 2 into effect (recapitalisation of Elan in 2008) It is plain that the Commission wrongly took as established fact six decisive circumstances on the basis of which it concluded that measure No 2 was incompatible with the principle of the private investor operating in a market economy: — first, the Commission misleadingly took into consideration the worst appraisal of the value of Elan’s own capital, although four assessments had been made in the rapid appraisal of value; — second, arbitrarily and without an expert’s report, it rejected as out of date and irrelevant the appraisal of value made by the Audit-IN company, and without justification gave preference to the rapid appraisal of value; — third, it wrongly found that no private investor had played a part in the recapitalisation, although the proportion of private capital was at least 35.05 %; — fourth, the Commission wrongly found that the long-term plan 2008-2012 and the recovery plan had been drawn up by Elan itself, for it completely disregarded the fact that the basis for the preparation of the recovery plan for Elan was the reorientation strategy devised for the company by an external consultant; — fifth, the finding that no agreement had been reached with the banks regarding the reprogramming of loans in existence before the recapitalisation is incorrect too, for it is evident that the Commission disregarded the evidence showing that the banks confirmed to Elan that they would consolidate the loans if the members of Elan would recapitalise the company; — sixth, the Commission’s assertion that the recapitalisation of Elan in 2007 was unsuccessful and that for that reason private shareholders would no longer invest in Elan is untrue.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/24

Action brought on 9 January 2013 — Iran Liquefied Natural Gas v Council

(Case T-5/13)

2013/C 55/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, G. Pandey, P. Gjørtler, D. Rovetta, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 (2), in so far as the contested acts include the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures.;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging violation of the right of hearing, as the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this, especially in relation to the imposition on current contractual engagements.

2. Second plea in law, alleging violation of the obligation to give notice, as the Council failed to notify the contested measures to the applicant.

3. Third plea in law, alleging insufficient statement of grounds, as the limited scope of the statement of reasons has been confirmed by the Council to the applicant, while requests for access to documents were not replied to.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the right of defence, as the applicant was denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings were withheld from the applicant.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, as contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant is not a subsidiary of the National Iranian Oil Company, and in any case the Council has not substantiated that even if it were a subsidiary of the latter, this would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested measures.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the fundamental right to property, as by imposing on the bank holdings and current contractual engagements of the applicant the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.

(1) Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58)

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16)