ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 August 2019 – Chypre v EUIPO – Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)

(Case T-593/19)

(2019/C 363/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, S. Baran, Barrister, V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

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 word mark GRILLOUMI BURGER – Application for registration No 15 963 283

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2019 in Case R 1297/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant for Annulment.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

annul the decision of the Director of the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) of 3 July 2019, notified to the applicant on 8 July 2019, to restart the administrative investigation in relation to her conduct and find that SatCen has failed to comply with the judgment of 25 October 2018 of the General Court in KF v The European Union Satellite Centre (Case T-286/15, EU:T:2018:718), infringing Article 266 TFEU;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 September 2019 – Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO – Carpathian Springs (Shape of a bottle)

(Case T-637/19)

(2019/C 399/99)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: M. Maček, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carpathian Springs SA (Vatra Dornei, Romania)

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 tridimensional mark (Shape of a bottle) – Application for registration No 14 979 959

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 August 2019 in Case R 317/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred to Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 September 2019 – Ace of spades v EUIPO – Krupp and Borrmann (Shape of Champagne rosé bottle)

(Case T-620/19)

(2019/C 399/92)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ace of spades Holdings LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gerhard Ernst Krupp (Munich, Germany) and Elmar Borrmann (Reith, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of Champagne rosé bottle) – Application for registration No 16 252 629

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2019 in Case R 1/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— upheld the present Appeal;

— annul the contested decision, and/or set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Articles 8(1) (b) EUTMR and 8(5) EUTMR and enter a finding to the effect that there does exist likelihood of confusion between the confronted trademarks;

— order the defendant (and intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
4.

Fourth plea in law, based on Article 270 TFEU and Article 91 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant submits in that regard that the Union has an obligation to make good the damage caused to its staff by any illegality committed in its capacity as an employer without the need to prove a sufficiently serious infringement. According to the applicant, the facts on which the request for assistance is based are unlawful acts committed in their capacity as employers and therefore oblige the Union to compensate for material and non-material damage, namely the costs of medical and legal assistance and the suffering caused during the period in question.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 October 2019 – Health Product Group v EUIPO – Bioline Pharmaceutical (Enterosgel)

(Case T-678/19)

(2019/C 399/117)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Health Product Group sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bioline Pharmaceutical AG (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Enterosgel – International registration designating the European Union No 896 788

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 August 2019 in Case R 482/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and cancel the trade mark;

— award the costs in applicant’s favour.

Plea in law
Action brought on 6 November 2019 — Productos Jamaica v EUIPO — Alada 1850 (flordeJamaica)

(Case T-739/19)

(2019/C 432/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Productos Jamaica (Algezares, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alada 1850, SL (Barberá del Vallés, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark flordeJamaica — European Union trade mark No 9 003 989

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2019 in the Joined Cases R 1431/2018-1 and R 1440/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible, together with the annexes thereto;

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Although it does not make it possible to rely on a plea of limitation in consequence of the acquiescence alleged in these submissions, the evidence of use adduced by both parties in the invalidity proceedings which gave rise to the present action does constitute evidence of coexistence on the market of the marks at issue over time to which the defendant acquiesced, which constitutes due cause for the use of the contested mark, in addition to confirming the absence of any likelihood of confusion on the market.

— It cannot be concluded from the evidence adduced by the defendant that the earlier mark has acquired a high degree of distinctive character through the use that has been made of that mark in Spain.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the claim is time-barred and, in any event, infringement of the ‘reasonable period’ rule, of Article 73a(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1) (‘the 2002 Financial Regulation’), of the right to sound administration as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (‘the ECHR’). According to the applicant, the Commission’s claim against the applicant is time-barred since the five-year time limit, provided for in Article 73a of the 2002 Financial Regulation, has expired. Article 85b(4) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1) (‘the 2002 Implementing Regulation’), which concerns grounds for interruption of the limitation period, is also ineffective. In any event, and even if interruption of the limitation period were lawful, the time taken in adopting the contested decision and the debit note accompanying it is manifestly unreasonable and infringes Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 6(1) of the ECHR (in so far as it sets out a fundamental right which is also a general principle of law).
Action brought on 29 October 2019 — Basaglia v Commission

(Case T-727/19)

(2019/C 432/76)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Basaglia (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Balossi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the decision of the European Commission of 4 September 2019 (C(2019) 6474 final) under Article 4 of the provisions implementing Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against the Commission’s decision refusing access to certain documents requested by the applicant concerning certain projects that were carried out with part Community funding, in respect of which proceedings are pending before the public prosecutor at the Tribunale di Milano (District Court, Milan, Italy).

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

1. First plea in law, concerning unilateral restriction of the scope of the original request and insufficient grounds. The applicant claims in this regard that: — in the present case there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever that could justify restricting the right of access to the documents requested and, therefore, the rights of defence of an individual in criminal proceedings in which he is a defendant in a Member State; — the amount of work required to retrieve copies of the documents requested is not disproportionate to such an interest; — the case-law cited in the contested decision is irrelevant; and — the decision does not strike a proper balance between the interests of the parties.

2. Second plea in law, concerning the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual. The applicant claims in this regard that: — the decision does not strike a proper balance between the interests of the parties; — the decision errs in so far as it considers that there is no overriding public interest in disclosure of the information requested; and — the requests made by the applicant are proportionate to the interest protected.

3. Third plea in law, concerning protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person. The applicant claims in this regard that: — the contested decision does not take into consideration the fact that the documents requested concern very old Community projects which are now complete and that, therefore, the right of protection of commercial interests has necessarily diminished; and — the decision does not strike a proper balance between the interests of the parties.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 November 2019 – Dvectis CZ v EUIPO – Yado (Support pillows)

(Case T-818/19)

(2020/C 27/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dvectis CZ s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Svojanovská, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Registered Community design No 3222 504-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2019 in Case R 513/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that the defendant bears the applicant’s costs in these proceedings.

If the Court does not agree with the above-stated proposal, the applicant requests to:

— change the contested decision in a way that the appeal of the applicant of 21 March 2018 is fully upheld and the design at issue remains valid;

— order that the defendant bears the applicant’s costs in these proceedings.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of Staff Regulations and Article 7(1) of the GIP: — the transferable pensionable years should be calculated on the basis of the amount actually transferred minus the capital appreciation between the date of the application for a transfer and the actual date of the transfer; — the PMO erred by calculating the transferable pensions rights based on the amount provided by the national administration in the provisional decision while the amount actually transferred was a result of the capital appreciation between the date of the application for a transfer and the actual date of the transfer, and: a recalculation of the pension rights by the national authority; the capital appreciation for the period prior to the request for a transfer.
8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that, in determining the amount of the aid to be recovered, losses, reliefs or exemptions which were available to the applicant (whether by way of claim, election, or automatically) at the time when it claimed the Group Financing Exemption, or which would have been available at that time had it not claimed the Group Financing Exemption, should be taken into account even if access to those losses, reliefs or exemptions is now time barred under UK law. The applicant argues that that is the correct interpretation of recital 203 of the contested decision but, insofar as that is not the case, the decision is incorrect because failing to take such losses, reliefs or exemptions into account would lead to over-calculation of the amount of the aid, which would introduce a distortion into the internal market.
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that, even assuming that the CFC measures in question prima facie constituted aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the contested decision wrongly concluded that there was no justification that could apply to defend the compatibility of the measures in question with EU State aid rules. In addition, the contested decision is irrational and inconsistent, in that the Commission has correctly accepted that Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified in cases where the only reason for a CFC charge to apply under the counterfactual of Chapter 5 of the said Part 9A would be the ‘UK connected capital’ test, on the basis that that test may be excessively difficult to operate in practice, but at the same time, and without providing adequate reasoning, the Commission contends the said Chapter 9 is never justified in cases where the significant people functions test would cause a CFC charge to apply under the said Chapter 5. In fact, the significant people functions test is excessively difficult to apply in practice, such that the Commission should have found the said Chapter 9 to be justified in the context of that test as well and, hence, it should have concluded that there is no State aid.
—

annul further, if need be, the decisions of 24 April 2019 and 26 August 2019 respectively rejecting the applicant’s request for administrative review and the applicant’s grievance procedure;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 December 2019 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA)

(Case T-831/19)

(2020/C 54/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bacardi & Co. Ltd (Meyrin, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA in white, red, grey, light blue, dark blue and orange — Application for registration No 12 946 182

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 in Case R 2533/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— join the proceedings on the applications against the decision of the defendant of 5 September 2019 in Cases R 2531/2018-2, R 2532/2018-2 and R 2533/2018-2;

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and the intervener to pay the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded its powers under Article 9(1) of Regulation 2658/87 by unlawfully amending the customs tariff because that implementing regulation amends the customs tariff, in so far products are excluded by that implementing regulation from a CN heading in which the product at issue should be categorised on the basis of its objective characteristics and properties.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 December 2019 — JMS Sports v EUIPO — Inter-Vion (Spiral hair elastics)

(Case T-823/19)

(2020/C 54/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: JMS Sports sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: D. Piróg and J. Słupski, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Inter-Vion S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the Court

Design at issue: Community design (spiral hair elastics) — Community design No 1723 677-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2019 in Case R 1573/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

— order the intervener, in the event of intervention, to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 5(1) in connection with Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of the rules governing the burden of proof;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 December 2019 — Multi-Service v Commission

(Case T-873/19)

(2020/C 87/25)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Multi-Service S.A. (Kwidzyn, Poland) (represented by: P. Jankowski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision ARES (2019) 6103796 of 3 October 2019 concerning registration in the registry in accordance with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/661, Registry ID 9920, and re-registration of the undertaking in the registry;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings;

— admit as evidence the letter of 23 October 2019.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The applicant alleges that the defendant infringed Article 17 of Regulation No 517/2014, in conjunction with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation 2019/661, in so far as it wrongly removed the registration of the applicant undertaking from the registry for hydrofluorocarbons (HFC).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 January 2020 – Promed v EUIPO – Centrumelektroniki (Promed)

(Case T-30/20)

(2020/C 68/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Promed GmbH kosmetische Erzeugnisse (Farchant, Germany) (represented by: B. Reinisch and B. Sorg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Centrumelektroniki sp.j. (Tarnowskie Góry, Poland)

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 Promed – European Union trade mark No 6 206 718

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2019 in Case R 614/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— as regards the applicant’s request for reimbursement of the appeal fee, alter the contested decision so that the appeal fee is reimbursed;

— annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 22 February 2019 (Cancellation Proceedings No 15 428 C) as far as mentioned decision has declared invalid the European Union trade mark No 6 206 718 for the goods: — Class 5: Test strips for medical purposes; — Class 9: Apparatus for measuring body temperature and functions; — Class 10: Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary instruments and apparatus, in particular pain therapy apparatus, electrodes for electric therapy apparatus, orthopaedic articles, in particular orthopaedic shoes and shoe inserts, ankle bandages, body bandages; orthopaedic stockings; insulin pens; foot massagers, massage apparatus; apparatus for radiotherapy, in particular heat and light therapy;

— as far as it has ordered the trademark proprietor (applicant) to bear costs;

— reject the request for cancellation of the European Union trade mark No 6 206 718 Promed entirely;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs (this includes the costs of applicant, the costs of EUIPO and as soon as the other party becomes intervener, the costs of intervener).

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(1) sentence 3 in conjunction with Article 59(1)(a), Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;