ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of law and appraisal on the part of the Commission in the examination of the private investor in a market economy test. This plea is divided into four parts: — first part, according to which, in confusing the applicability of the private investor in a market economy test with the application thereof, the Commission erred in law and incorrectly applied that test; — second part, according to which, in not carrying out a comparative analysis or using another assessment method in respect of the transaction at issue, the Commission infringed the principle of the private investor in a market economy as well as the obligation to state reasons and the obligation of due diligence in the appraisal of that test; — third part, according to which the Commission breached the obligation to state reasons and the obligation of due diligence in the assessment of the private investor in a market economy test; — fourth part, according to which the Walloon Region provided a large number of documents demonstrating that Foreign Strategic Investment Holding, a subsidiary of Société Wallonne de Gestion et de Participations, acted in the manner of a private investor in a market economy.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/45

Action brought on 13 February 2017 — King.com v EUIPO — TeamLava (Animated icons)

(Case T-96/17)

(2017/C 112/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: King.com Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor and T. Dolde, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TeamLava LLC (Redwood Suite, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 2216416-0049

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1/12/2016 in Case R 1948/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2257 of 14 December 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Chengdu Sunshine Shoes Co. Ltd, Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu Footwear Ltd and Fujian Sunshine Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the conditions of eligibility for exemption of a gas infrastructure laid down in Article 36(1)(b) of Directive 2009/73/EC, read in conjunction with Article 2(33) of that directive. — The condition for granting a regulatory exemption in respect of a major new gas infrastructure is that the level of risk attached to investment in that infrastructure is such that that investment would not take place unless an exemption were granted. — The investment concerning the construction of the OPAL gas pipeline was finally realised and completed on 13 July 2011, with the result that it is no longer possible to speak of the continued existence of any such risks.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/55

Action brought on 14 March 2017 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v EUIPO — Pink Lady America (WILD PINK)

(Case T-164/17)

(2017/C 144/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd (Victoria, Australia), Star Fruits Diffusion (Caderousse, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pink Lady America (Yakima, Washington, United States)

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: EU word mark ‘WILD PINK’ — Application for registration No 11 701 216

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 87/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicants before the Office’s Fourth Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No. 207/2009 and the rights of defense;

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No. 207/2009 and of Article 296 TFEU,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/29

Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Cotecnica v EUIPO — Mignini & Petrini (cotecnica MAXIMA)

(Case T-136/17)

(2017/C 129/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cotecnica, SCCL (Bellpuig, Spain) (represented by: J. Erdozain López, J. Galán López and J. Devaureix, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mignini & Petrini SpA (Petrignano di Assisi, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘cotecnica MAXIMA’ — Application for registration No 13 292 495

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2016 in Case R 853/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

By this action, the Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) challenges the requests made by the Commission by means of its debit note 3241615291/29.11.2016, in relation to participation in the SENSATION project. By means of that debit note, the Commission requested that ΕΚΕΤΑ reimburse part of the payment received by it for the SENSATION project, a sum of EUR 197 799,52. The request follows an on-the-spot audit which was carried out by the European Commission at the applicant’s premises.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/33

Action brought on 7 April 2017 — Pear Technologies v EUIPO — Apple (PEAR)

(Case T-215/17)

(2017/C 168/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pear Technologies Ltd (Macau, China) (represented by: J. Coldham, Solicitor and E. Himsworth, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘PEAR’ — Application for registration No 13 115 076

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017 in Case R 860/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; and/or

— remit the matter for further consideration by the Board of Appeal;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal;

— order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/40

Action brought on 6 April 2017 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE TURBO)

(Case T-210/17)

(2017/C 161/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Qormi, Malta) (represented by: M.D. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘TRIPLE TURBO’ — Application for registration No 13 140 207

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2017 in Case R 119/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/29

Action brought on 6 April 2017 — Out of the blue v EUIPO — Dubois and MFunds USA (FUNNY BANDS)

(Case T-214/17)

(2017/C 178/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and A. Zarm, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frédéric Dubois (Lasne, Belgium) and MFunds USA LLC (Miami Beach, Florida, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FUNNY BANDS’ — EU trade mark No 9 350 794

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20/01/2017 in Case R 1081/2016-2)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— overturn the contested decision;

— declare the EU trade mark No 009 350 794‘FUNNY BANDS’ invalid pursuant to Articles 52(1)(a), 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR;

— order EUIPO to pay its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant;

— in the event that the EUTM Proprietors join in these proceedings as an intervening party, order it to bear its own costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/24

Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Rustproof System ADAPTA)

(Case T-226/17)

(2017/C 202/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peniscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Rustproof System ADAPTA’ — European Union trade mark No 9 905 548

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 2408/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present action in its entirety;

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and, where appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the costs incurred in the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and the subsequent appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/42

Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (Национальный Продукт)

(Case T-246/17)

(2017/C 195/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark featuring the word element ‘Национальный Продукт’ — registration application No 14 747 513

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2017 in Case R 1017/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/34

Action brought on 5 May 2017 — Bayer v EUIPO — UNI — Pharma (SALOSPIR)

(Case T-261/17)

(2017/C 221/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: UNI — Pharma Kleon Tsetis Pharmaceutical Laboratories Industrial and Commercial SA (Kifisia, Greece)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘SALOSPIR’ — Application for registration No 12 351 458

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 February 2017 in Case R 2444/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Uni-Pharma, if the latter makes use of its right to join the proceedings as an intervener, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/35

Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Ogrodnik v EUIPO — Aviario Tropical (Tropical)

(Case T-276/17)

(2017/C 213/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tadeusz Ogrodnik (Chorzów, Poland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aviario Tropical, SA (Loures, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Tropical’ — EU trade mark No 3 435 773

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2017 in Case R 2125/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the appeal brought by Aviário Tropical, SA, against the decision of the Defendant’s Cancellation Division of 15 July 2013 in Case 6029 C;

— order EUIPO and Aviário Tropical, SA, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/51

Action brought on 19 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale

(Case T-318/17)

(2017/C 231/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, Agent and M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale Srl (Oricola, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of EUR 359 913,75 in relation to the Grant Agreement for partners No 325940 ‘EULOSAM — Design and Manufacturing of Baseline Low-Speed, Low-Sweep Wind Tunnel Model’, plus the amount of EUR 2 105,25 as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,5 % for the period between 31 January and 1 April 2017;

— order the defendant to pay EUR 34,51 per day by way of interest from 2 April 2017 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law.

The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to implement project EULOSAM and by failing to provide CSJU with the relevant reports and deliverables, in accordance with Article II.2 Annex II of the Grant Agreement.

Moreover, the defendant has failed to carry out the work to be performed as identified in Annex I therefore violating its obligations under Article II.3 lett. a) e) and h) of Annex II of the Grant Agreement.

Accordingly, the consortium terminated the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of EUR 359 913,75 that had already been paid by the coordinator to the defendant in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Indeed the pre-financing remains the property of the applicant until final payment.

The facts giving rise to Revoind Industriale S.r.l.’s obligations, as beneficiary of the Grant Agreement, are widely undisputed in the present case and the defendant’s objections are generic, incomplete and lack of any supporting element, thus appear to be completely unfounded.

Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.
—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 58, p. 34), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 58, p. 1), in so far as these acts retain the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures;
2.

Second plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging that the regional aid scheme did not constitute an existing aid scheme. According to the applicants, the Commission caused the contested decision to be unlawful by holding that the 10-year limitation period had been interrupted by an action brought in 2004 by the Syndicat autonome des transporteurs de voyageurs (Independent trade union for road passenger operators) (‘the SATV’) before the national court. Article 17 of Regulation No 2015/1589 provides that the 10-year limitation period is interrupted only by a measure taken by the Commission or by a Member State, acting at the request of the Commission. The applicants claim that the initiation of an action before the national court by the SATV does not constitute a measure interrupting the limitation period for the purposes of that provision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/47

Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Red Bull v EUIPO (Representation of a parallelogram composed of two fields in different colours)

(Case T-305/17)

(2017/C 231/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck and S. Petivlasova, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a parallelogram composed of 2 fields in different colours) — Application for registration No 14 326 508

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2017 in Case R 2582/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission was wrong to impose any fine on the applicants, as they cannot be liable for the alleged infringement, and in any case the Commission erred in the fine calculation as regards the values of the sales, the gravity factor related to SAS Cargo’s particular situation, the duration, the recidivism uplift and the various mitigating circumstances; as such the fine should be annulled or alternatively significantly reduced.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/71

Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB)

(Case T-356/17)

(2017/C 239/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Daico International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Kassner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: American Franchise Marketing Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘RoB’ — EU trade mark No 5 752 324

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 in Case R 1407/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/29

Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Fakro v Commission

(Case T-293/17)

(2017/C 249/45)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Fakro sp z o.o. (Nowy Sącz, Poland) (represented by: A. Radkowiak-Macuda, legal adviser)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— find that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under the TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights by failing to take a position on the complaint brought before it by the applicant on 12 July 2012 concerning abuse of a dominant position by the VELUX group, notwithstanding the fact that it was formally called on to do so;

— order the Commission to pay the costs, even in the event that the case does not proceed to judgment in view of the adoption by the Commission of a decision during the judicial proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 288 TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 102 TFEU and 105 TFEU and with Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The adoption, after three and a half years, of an initial, allegedly factual position in the procedure regarding the complaint lodged by the applicant does not constitute dealing with the case within a reasonable time. The Commission has not produced any evidence making it possible to determine that any action whatsoever was undertaken during the investigation procedure. Before adopting a decision, the Commission is required to carry out a thorough analysis of the matters of fact and of law put forward by the complainant. The proceedings initiated by the applicant constitute the only way in which it can safeguard its rights.
—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423 of 9 March 2017 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by Fujian Viscap Shoes Co. Ltd, Vietnam Ching Luh Shoes Co. Ltd, Vinh Thong Producing-Trading-Service Co. Ltd, Qingdao Tae Kwang Shoes Co. Ltd, Maystar Footwear Co. Ltd, Lien Phat Company Ltd, Qingdao Sewon Shoes Co. Ltd, Panyu Pegasus Footwear Co. Ltd, PanYu Leader Footwear Corporation, Panyu Hsieh Da Rubber Co. Ltd, An Loc Joint Stock Company, Qingdao Changshin Shoes Company Limited, Chang Shin Vietnam Co. Ltd, Samyang Vietnam Co. Ltd, Qingdao Samho Shoes Co. Ltd, Min Yuan, Chau Giang Company Limited, Foshan Shunde Fong Ben Footwear Industrial Co. Ltd and Dongguan Texas Shoes Limited Co., implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and