do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-536/14: Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Sheraton International IP v OHIM — Staywell Hospitality Group (PARK REGIS)
Date: 2014-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014339EN.01002001.xml










29.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/20





Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Sheraton International IP v OHIM — Staywell Hospitality Group (PARK REGIS)
(Case T-536/14)
2014/C 339/24
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Sheraton International IP LLC (Stamford, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (Sydney, Australia)

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 30 April 2014 given in joined Cases R 240/2013-5 and R 303/2013-5;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.





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 containing the verbal elements ‘PARK REGIS’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 4 88  933

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: CTM registrations, International trade mark registrations and well-known mark ‘ST REGIS’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
Case T-577/13: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Zehnder v OHIM — UAB ‘Amalva’ (komfovent)
Date: 2014-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, air conditioning, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014329EN.01002602.xml










22.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/26





Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Zehnder v OHIM — UAB ‘Amalva’ (komfovent)
(Case T-577/13) (1)

2014/C 329/42
Language of the case: English
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
Case T-196/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Stal-Florez Botero (la nana) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark ‘la nana’  — Earlier national word mark NANA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, manufactured goods, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014292EN.01004301.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/43





Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Stal-Florez Botero (la nana)
(Case T-196/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark ‘la nana’ - Earlier national word mark NANA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
2014/C 292/52
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Lina M. Stal-Florez Botero (Maarssen, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2013 (Case R 300/2012-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Lina M. Stal-Florez Botero.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2014-07-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, citrus fruit, common customs tariff, essential oil








C_2014225EN.01000301.xml










16.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/3





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2014/C 225/04)
Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 155, the Explanatory note to CN subheadings ‘3301 12 10 to 3301 19 80 Essential oils of citrus fruit’ is replaced by the following:








‘3301 12 10




Essential oils of citrus fruit






to



 





3301 19 80



These oils are obtained, almost entirely, from the peel of the fruit. They have a pleasant odour which is similar to that of the fruit used in their preparation. Orange-blossom oils or neroli oil are not regarded as essential oils of citrus fruit and are classified in subheading 3301 29 41 or 3301 29 91.
A deterpenated essential oil is an essential oil where the content of the monoterpenic hydrocarbons has been partially or completely removed.’







(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 137, 6.5.2011, p. 1.
Case T-569/12: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Marouf v Council
Date: 2014-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, civilian victim, freedom of self-determination, freedom of the press, human rights, international sanctions, legal basis, ownership, protection of privacy, repression, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2014329EN.01002503.xml










22.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/25





Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Marouf v Council
(Case T-569/12) (1)

2014/C 329/38
Language of the case: English
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2014-07-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, EU waters, Ireland, North Sea, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








C_2014225EN.01001401.xml










16.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/14





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2014/C 225/10)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


25.6.2014




Duration


25.6.2014 - 31.12.2014




Member State


Ireland




Stock or Group of stocks


ARU/34-C




Species


Greater silver smelt (Argentina silus)




Zone


Union waters of III and IV




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


10/TQ43






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-578/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — National Iranian Oil Company v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Infra-State body — Standing to bring proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Indication and choice of legal basis — Powers of the Council — Principle of foreseeability of European Union acts — Meaning of providing support to nuclear proliferation — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of the defence and right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality — Right to property)
Date: 2014-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, international sanctions, legal basis, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2014292EN.01003901.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/39





Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — National Iranian Oil Company v Council
(Case T-578/12) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Infra-State body - Standing to bring proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Indication and choice of legal basis - Powers of the Council - Principle of foreseeability of European Union acts - Meaning of providing support to nuclear proliferation - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence and right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality - Right to property))
2014/C 292/47
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: National Iranian Oil Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and M. Konstantinidis, agents)

Re:

Annulment of 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) and 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).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders National Iranian Oil Company to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.
Case T-539/14: Action brought on 16 July 2014  — North Drilling v Council
Date: 2014-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, equal treatment, free movement of persons, international sanctions, ownership, powers of the institutions (EU), right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2014303EN.01005502.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/55





Action brought on 16 July 2014 — North Drilling v Council
(Case T-539/14)
2014/C 303/66
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: North Drilling Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/222/CFSP of 16 April 2014, in so far as it refers to the applicant, and remove the applicant’s name from the annex thereto;










—


annul Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 397/2014 of 16 April 2014, in so far as it refers to the applicant, and remove the applicant’s name from the annex thereto; and










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: a manifest error in the assessment of the facts on which the contested measures are based, in that they lack any factual or evidential basis.










2.


Second plea in law: breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the reasons stated for the contested measures, as regards the applicant, lack any real basis and are imprecise, unspecific and generic, making it impossible for the applicant adequately to prepare its defence.










3.


Third plea in law: infringement of the right to effective judicial protection as regards the reasons stated for the measures, the lack of evidence for the reasons stated and the rights of defence and of property, since the requirements to state reasons and to provide actual evidence were not met, which affects the other rights.










4.


Fourth plea in law: misuse of power, since there is objective, specific and consistent evidence that, in adopting the penalties, the Council pursued aims different from those it claimed to pursue, thus misusing its power in a fraudulent manner.










5.


Fifth plea in law: misinterpretation of the legal rules intended to be applied, in that they are interpreted and applied in an incorrect and extensive manner, which is inadmissible in relation to penalties.










6.


Sixth plea in law: infringement of the right to property, in that the applicant’s right to property was limited without any real justification and without respecting the principle of proportionality.










7.


Seventh plea in law: breach of the principle of equal treatment, since the applicant’s competitive position was damaged, without there being any justification for such treatment.
Case T-36/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Erreà Sport v OHIM — Facchinelli (ANTONIO BACIONE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ANTONIO BACIONE — Earlier Community figurative mark erreà and earlier national figurative mark representing two overlapping lozenges — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sports equipment, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2014292EN.01004001.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/40





Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Erreà Sport v OHIM — Facchinelli (ANTONIO BACIONE)
(Case T-36/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ANTONIO BACIONE - Earlier Community figurative mark erreà and earlier national figurative mark representing two overlapping lozenges - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
2014/C 292/49
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Erreà Sport SpA (Torrile, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Antonio Facchinelli (Dalang, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2012 (Case R 1561/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Erreà Sport SpA and Antonio Facchinelli.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Erreà Sport SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.
Case T-52/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Greece v Commission (State aid — Compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Article 107(3)(b) and (c) TFEU — Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector)
Date: 2014-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, State aid, agricultural insurance, compensatory financing, domestic market, reimbursement of aid








C_2014292EN.01003401.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/34





Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Greece v Commission
(Case T-52/12) (1)

((State aid - Compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Article 107(3)(b) and (c) TFEU - Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector))
2014/C 292/40
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented initially by I. Chalkias and S. Papaïoannou, then by I. Chalkias and A. Vasilopoulou, agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by D. Triantafyllou and S. Thomas, then by D. Triantafyllou and R. Sauer, agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2012/157/EU of 7 December 2011 concerning compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 (OJ 2012 L 78, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs, including those relating to the action for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
Case T-66/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Langguth Erben v OHIM (Shape of an alcoholic beverage bottle) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of an alcoholic beverage bottle — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2), Article 75, Article 76(1) and Article 77 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, bottling, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014292EN.01004101.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/41





Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Langguth Erben v OHIM (Shape of an alcoholic beverage bottle)
(Case T-66/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of an alcoholic beverage bottle - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2), Article 75, Article 76(1) and Article 77 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2014/C 292/50
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG (Traben-Trarbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Marten, G. Schneider and D. Walicka, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2012 (Case R 129/2012-1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of an alcoholic beverage bottle as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).






(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.
Case T-516/13: Action brought on 16 July 2014  — CW v Council
Date: 2014-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Tunisia, indemnification, international sanctions, ownership








C_2014351EN.01000901.xml










6.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/9





Action brought on 16 July 2014 — CW v Council
(Case T-516/13)
2014/C 351/10
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 2013/409/CFSP of 30 July 2013 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 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.





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 2013/409/CFSP (1), inasmuch as that decision is based on a ground other than that set out in Article 1 of Decision 2011/72/CFSP (2), which constitutes the legal basis for the former decision.










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 Implementing Decision 2013/409/CFSP of 30 July 2013 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2013 L 204, p. 52).

(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).