ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 29 June 2018 — ITSA v Commission

(Case T-396/18)

(2018/C 352/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) (Sunbury-on-Thames, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Scanvic, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/573 of 15 December 2017 on key elements of data storage contracts to be concluded as part of a traceability system for tobacco products, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/574 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for the establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products and Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/576 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for security features applied to tobacco products.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of the WHO Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products adopted in Seoul on 12 November 2012, prohibiting the tobacco industry from being responsible for activities relating to the marking of tobacco products. In that regard, the applicant claims that, although the Protocol has not yet come into force, it has been agreed and signed by the European Union, which may not take measures that do not comply with it.

Furthermore, it states that Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1), on the basis on which the contested regulation in the present case was adopted, can and must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Protocol referred to, regardless of the fact that that protocol does not expressly prohibit the activities at issue from being responsible for the tobacco industry.

Finally, should such an interpretation be precluded, the Directive itself will be contrary to the Protocol and, therefore, the European Treaties.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 August 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (Premiere)

(Case T-479/18)

(2018/C 341/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Premiere — Application No 16 660 383

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 in Case R 2365/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 July 2018 — Lotte v EUIPO — Générale Biscuit-Glico France (PEPERO original)

(Case T-459/18)

(2018/C 364/17)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Lotte (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: G. Ringeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Générale Biscuit-Glico France (Clamart, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark PEPERO original in colours red, brown, yellow, white

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 May 2018 in Case R 913/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible;

— annul the contested decision to the extent that it cancelled European Union trade mark No 7 413 651 of the company LOTTE and ordered it to reimburse the fees and costs of the company Générale Biscuit-Glico France;

— order EUIPO and the company Générale Biscuit-Glico France to reimburse the company LOTTE the representation expenses in each of the proceedings;

— order EUIPO and the company Générale Biscuit-Glico France to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 64 of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 8(5) thereof;
Action brought on 27 June 2018 — Riesco García v Parliament

(Case T-391/18)

(2018/C 352/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Juan Carlos Riesco García (Rota, Spain) (represented by: M. Tey Ariza, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— grant the action brought by way of this application, and in accordance with the powers of the General Court of the European Union, for a declaration of failure to act in respect of the response received from the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 31 May 2017 to his Petition No 0741/2015 on the alleged discrimination between career civil servants and temporary civil servants as regards the difference in treatment in respect of the retirement conditions of generalist administrators of the Spanish State;

— on the basis of the legislation at issue (Council Directive 1999/70 of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP), declare the action admissible, rule on the issue raised and, on the basis thereof, order the Spanish State to declare and immediately give effect to the right of all generalist administrators of the Spanish State to have the same or similar conditions of access to early retirement.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that, in accordance with the Spanish legislation which is the subject of the petition, some permanent (career) employees affiliated to the social security scheme, approaching voluntary retirement, are permitted to change their social security scheme, because they are permanent employees; whereas temporary employees are not permitted to do the same because they are not permanent employees.

For the applicant, the unfounded response received from the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament to the Petition (0741/2015) is disappointing and incomprehensible. That intuition which, having declared the petition admissible, and having stated on 3 August 2016 that it was necessary to bring Spanish legislation in line with Directive 1999/70 in respect of what was sought (equal conditions of retirement), including contemplating the possibility of initiating infringement proceedings, subsequently retracted that, arguing that there were unresolved ‘factual issues’.

Even more incomprehensible is that, if there are doubts on the issue, a reference is not made to the institution with competence to decide whether it is necessary in this case to bring national legislation in line with Directive 1999/70, namely the Court of Justice of the European Union, instead proposing to resolve that issue before the national courts, which are less, or even not at all competent to decide whether the national legislation needs to be brought in line with the European legislation.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 September 2018 — K.A. Schmersal Holding v EUIPO — Tecnium (tec.nicum)

(Case T-527/18)

(2018/C 381/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: K.A. Schmersal Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: A. Haudan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tecnium, SA (Manresa, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘tec.nicum’ — European Union trade mark No 13 626 791

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2018 in Case R 2427/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it confirms the dismissal of the application for registration of the contested mark for Class 42;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— No genuine use of the mark on which the opposition is based;

— Incorrect identification of the relevant public;

— No similarity between the services;

— No similarity between the opposing marks;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 August 2018 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — IRF (MediWell)

(Case T-502/18)

(2018/C 373/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharmadom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: M-P. Dauquaire, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IRF s. r. o. (Bratislava, Slovakia).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark MediWell — Application for registration No 15 078 645

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2018 in Case R 6/2018-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division;

— refuse the mark applied for;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law: infringement of Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1306/2013. Even if there was an infringement of Regulation No 809/2014 on the part of the Czech Republic in this case (quod non), the Commission also included in the calculation of the financial correction the resources paid to agricultural undertakings for which there was demonstrably no infringement of Regulation No 809/2014 in the on-the-spot checks. The Commission thus also imposed a financial correction with respect to expenditure which could not be regarded as unjustifiably incurred and from which there was no risk to the EU funds.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 September 2018 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (fitness)

(Case T-536/18)

(2018/C 399/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht, C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Food SA (Păntășești, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark fitness — European Union trade mark No 2 470 326

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2018 in Case R 755/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the appeal against the Cancellation Division’s decision 5802 C of 18 October 2013;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 4 September 2018 — XI v Commission

(Case T-528/18)

(2018/C 408/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: XI (represented by: N. Lhöest, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 25 May 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint in so far as that decision contains medical data;

— order the Commission to pay damages and interest, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, together with a breach of the duty of good administration and the duty of care, in so far as the decision refusing the applicant’s claim disclosed medical data which were, moreover, manifestly incorrect.
—

in the alternative, annul the Commission decision of 20 June 2018 concerning the alleged State aid SA.44888 which, it is claimed, was implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in favour of Engie in so far as that decision orders the recovery of the aid;
—

annul the decision of the selection board of open competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 (1) of the 1st of December 2017 and of the 7th of March 2018 not to include the applicant in the database of successful candidates in its final form after EUIPO’s rejection of 08/06/2018 of the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Boxer Barcelona v EUIPO — X-Technology Swiss (XBOXER)

(Case T-582/18)

(2018/C 427/124)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Boxer Barcelona, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: X-Technology Swiss GmbH (Wollerau, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark XBOXER — Application for registration No 11 673 068

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 2186/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Insufficiency of the evidence of use submitted by the opponent.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 September 2018 — CA Consumer Finance v ECB

(Case T-578/18)

(2018/C 436/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CA Consumer Finance (Massy, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, Decision ECB-SSM-2018-FRCAG-76 adopted by the ECB on 16 July 2018;

— order the ECB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are, in essence, identical to those relied on in Case T-576/18, Crédit agricole v ECB.
Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Agrochem-Maks v Commission

(Case T-574/18)

(2018/C 427/122)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1019; (1)

— order the defendant to pay its own costs and to bear applicant’s costs in the present proceedings.

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 violation of the administration’s obligation to give reasons pursuant to Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2. Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 6(f) of or point 2.2. of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (2) and of the proportionality principle, in relation to the alleged data gaps concerning the active substance for which approval is sought.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the erroneous application of the precautionary principle with regard to the said alleged data gaps/issues that could not be finalised for the purposes of the risk assessment.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 with regard to the identification of high risk with regard to aquatic organisms.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1019 of 18 July 2018 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance oxasulfuron, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2018 L 183, p. 14).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the withdrawal of a measure conferring subjective rights, in that the applicant’s rights were fixed when he entered the service of the EEAS on 1 October 2011 in accordance with Article 15(1) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. The applicant submits therefore that either that decision was lawful and could not be withdrawn, or it was unlawful and so the withdrawal could take effect only within a reasonable period.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 October 2018 — Herholz Vertrieb v EUIPO (#)

(Case T-631/18)

(2018/C 445/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Herholz Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG (Ahaus, Germany) (represented by: D. Sprenger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark # — Application for registration No 16 967 267

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2018 in Case R 445/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— vary the contested decision by registering the EU trade mark as applied for;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the contested decision was adopted after the expiry of the period of 30 working days from the reception of his declaration of intention to engage in an occupational activity after leaving the service.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 November 2018 — romwell v EUIPO (twistpac)

(Case T-662/18)

(2019/C 4/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: romwell GmbH & Co. KG (Breitscheidt, Germany) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: Application for EU word mark twistpac — Application for registration No 17 219 163

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2018 in Case R 336/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 November 2018 — Kalypso Media Group v EUIPO — Wizards of the Coast (DUNGEONS)

(Case T-700/18)

(2019/C 25/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kalypso Media Group GmbH (Worms, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, Rechtsanwalt)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wizards of the Coast LLC (Pawtucket, Rhode Island, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark DUNGEONS — Application for registration No 13 271 838

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2018 in Case R 599/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging insufficient transparency of the transfer procedure, breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and failure to state grounds, infringement of the applicant’s right to defence from the enforced transfer, and breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and of the right to be heard.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 November 2018 — Wyld v EUIPO — Kaufland Warenhandel (wyld)

(Case T-711/18)

(2019/C 35/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wyld GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kaufland Warenhandel GmbH & Co. KG

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘wyld’ — Application for registration No 14 525 562

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2018 in Case R 2621/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and to allow the application for registration of the European Union trade mark No 14 525 562 ‘wyld’, which has so far been refused;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 November 2018 — Pyke v EUIPO — Paglieri (CLIOMAKEUP)

(Case T-672/18)

(2019/C 25/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pyke Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi, N. Parrotta and R. Perotti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paglieri SpA (Alessandria, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark CLIOMAKEUP — Application for registration No 11 698 446

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 August 2018 in Case R 2675/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— order Paglieri to pay the costs.

Plea in law