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

Action brought on 22 August 2022 — Sastela v EUIPO — Zenergo (Tante Mitzi Caffè CAFFÈ — STRUDEL — BARETTO)

(Case T-510/22)

(2022/C 380/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sastela, proizvodnja peciva in tort, d.o.o. (Ljutomer, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zenergo d.o.o. (Zgornja Polskava, Slovenia)

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 Tante Mitzi Caffè CAFFÈ — STRUDEL — BARETTO — European Union trade mark No 11 425 394

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2022 in Case R 1413/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the application in this case, reform the contested decision to uphold its appeal to the Board of Appeal and reform the decision of the cancellation division to the effect of setting aside the revocation of the contested trade mark;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision and remit the case to EUIPO for further deliberation;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

The reasons for listing of the applicant contain a number of terms, which are defined neither in the Contested Acts nor in jurisprudence. In view of this, their meaning is not clear to the applicant, and it cannot unambiguously understand them and decide how to act in the context of the measures taken against it by the Council.
—

annul the contested decisions, namely (a) Decision 015/2022 of 23 March 2022 of the College of the defendant rejecting the complaint of 3 December 2021 against Decision 090/2021 of 8 September 2021 of the College of the defendant, (b) Decision 090/2021 of 8 September 2021 of the College of the defendant, (c) Decision 021/2022 of 30 May 2022 of the College of the defendant and (d) any other related action or omission of the organs of the defendant,
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 September 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — BRM Extremities (BIOPLAN)

(Case T-543/22)

(2022/C 408/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BRM Extremities Srl (Milan, Italy)

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 BIOPLAN — Application for registration No 18 095 065

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2022 in Case R 2147/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and to BRM Extremities Srl, in case BRM Extremities Srl decides to intervene in the present proceedings, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 September 2022 — Chmielarz v EUIPO — Granulat (granulat)

(Case T-557/22)

(2022/C 418/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Arkadiusz Chmielarz (Olsztyn, Poland) (represented by: D. Sęczkowski, Advocate)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Granulat GmbH (Troisdorf, Germany)

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 figurative mark granulat — Application for registration No 18 066 758

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2022 in Case R 1197/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division to the extent the opposition was upheld;

— order EUIPO to register the contested trade mark application;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in grey with darker horses)

(Case T-539/22)

(2022/C 418/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, R. Wessman and S. Ljungblad, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Schwäbisch Hall, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union pattern mark representing a checked pattern in grey with darker horses — European Union trade mark No 18 180 227

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2022 in Case R 1731/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Cancellation Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the proprietor and the cancellation applicant] are similar’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the proprietor.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti, a general principle of EU law, by accepting the re-allocation of the case from the German Federal Cartel Office (‘FCO’) thereby departing from established rules of practice as set out in the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 September 2022 — Agus v EUIPO — Alpen Food Group (ROYAL MILK)

(Case T-603/22)

(2022/C 441/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Agus sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: B. Wojtkowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alpen Food Group BV (Weesp, Netherlands)

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 ROYAL MILK — European Union trade mark No 10 321 735

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2022 in Case R 2056/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 August 2022 — Sberbank Europe v Council and Others

(Case T-523/22)

(2022/C 432/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sberbank Europe AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU the contested decision; (1) and

— order the SRB, the Commission and the Council to bear the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the SRB exceeded its competence by adopting a decision with respect to the applicant.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB infringed essential procedural requirements with respect to the applicant.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a number of substantive defects.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to consider appropriately alternative measures pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) SRMR. (2)

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to choose the least burdensome option in the context of resolution action with respect to the applicant.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated substantive and procedural rules governing the sale of business tool, including Article 20 SRMR.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality and committed a manifest error of assessment with respect to potential alternative solutions.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to contact the applicant’s or Sberbank Slovenia’s management in relation to Article 13(3) SRMR.

9. Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to follow the resolution plan without any plausible justification.

(1) The decision contested by the applicant in this case is the SRB’s decision of 1 March 2022 (SRB/EES/2022/20) with respect to the Slovenian subsidiary of the applicant (Sberbank banka d.d.) including, if applicable, the approval of such decision by the Commission and/or the Council.

(2) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).
Action brought on 14 October 2022 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-642/22)

(2022/C 451/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1355 of 4 August 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1354 of 4 August 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2), insofar as they apply to the applicant. The applicant also seeks his costs.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in determining that the designation criterion had been satisfied. In particular, the Council accepted at face value, without any attempted verification whatsoever, unsubstantiated and largely historic assertions, allegations and even opinions from various media reports of questionable reliability. The Council presented these claims and accusations as fact, despite the many inaccuracies and inconsistencies identified by the applicant in his observations. The Council should have undertaken further investigation and conducted a proper examination of the sufficiency, credibility, and reliability of the material upon which it relied, but failed to do so. In consequence, there is no sufficiently solid factual basis for the 2022 August Sanctions and they should accordingly be annulled.

(1) OJ 2022, L 204 I, p. 4.

(2) OJ 2022, L 204 I, p. 1.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is procedurally and substantively vitiated because of the following specific defects pertaining to the contested decision: — The contested decision violates Article 22(6) SRMR and Article 28(2) SRMR (1) because (a) the costs do not constitute reasonable expenses properly incurred in connection with the use of the resolution tools or powers; (b) the SRB did not take an appropriate decision with respect to the manner in which the costs are recovered by it and should have imposed the costs on the institution under resolution and therefore indirectly the purchaser; (c) Article 28(2) SRMR only authorises the SRB to give instructions to the national resolution authorities as to aspects of the execution of the resolution scheme whereas the costs referenced by the contested decision are costs associated with the procedure leading to the resolution decision; and (d) the SRMR does not authorise the SRB to obtain legal or other advice at the expense of the supervised entity or its shareholders. — The involvement of external advisors violates Article 41 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union which provides for a right of every person to have his or her affairs handled by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union and not external advisors. — The costs imposed on the applicant by the contested decision would in any case be covered by the regular contributions to the administrative expenditure of the SRB by each supervised institution. — It follows e contrario from the special rules permitting the recovery of expenses for legal counsel in certain circumstances that such costs cannot generally be recovered. — The costs were not properly and reasonably incurred. — Certain costs concern matters of Croatian law. Only the national authorities and courts are responsible for the interpretation and application of Croatian law. — Certain costs concern sanction matters which are also outside the competence of the SRB.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 October 2022 — moderne Stadt v EUIPO (DEUTZER HAFEN)

(Case T-656/22)

(2022/C 472/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: moderne Stadt Gesellschaft zur Förderung des Städtebaues und der Gemeindeentwicklung mbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: G. Simon and L. Daams, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark DEUTZER HAFEN — Application No 18 316 145

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 August 2022 in Case R 2195/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 October 2022 — C. & S. v EUIPO — Scuderia AlphaTauri (CS jeans your best fashion partner)

(Case T-645/22)

(2022/C 463/85)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: C. & S. Srl (Umbertide, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scuderia AlphaTauri SpA (Faenza, Italy)

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 CS jeans your best fashion partner — European Union trade mark No 9 387 986

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 August 2022 in Case R 182/2022-1

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 October 2022 — Mood Media Netherlands v EUIPO — Tailoradio (VIDEO MOOD Digital Signage, made easy)

(Case T-664/22)

(2023/C 7/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Mood Media Netherlands (Naarden, Netherlands) (represented by: A.-M. Pecoraro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tailoradio Srl (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark VIDEO MOOD Digital Signage, made easy in the colours grey, blue and white — Application for registration No 16 150 691

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 August 2022 in Case R 1852/2018-5

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 an infringement of Article 67 in relation to Article 63 of EU Staff Regulation. (1) The decision issued by a national court on 28 November 2021 regarding the right of custody was not respected by EUIPO in the sense that the latter considers that 50 % of the family allowances should not be paid to the applicant but only to the other parent, an official of the EUIPO, under very discretional reasons, such as that the decision of the national court does not specify that the applicant’s son is living with both parents during exactly 50 % of time. EUIPO distorted the facts, since usually Family Court decisions are not specifying periods of time, hours or days.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 November 2022 — Kingbird v Commission

(Case T-686/22)

(2023/C 24/67)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Kingbird — Consultores e Serviços, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.
—

Annul (i) the European Investment Bank’s (hereafter the ‘EIB’) decision, with a specified date, with subject ‘Non conversion of fixed-term contract’ rejecting arguments submitted on behalf of applicant for the conversion of his employment contract, (ii) the EIB decision informing the applicant that his employment with the European Investment Bank will terminate on a specified date, and (iii) the EIB decision, issued on a specified date, rejecting the applicant’s request of administrative review disputing: (1o) the decision not to convert the applicant’s employment contract from a fixed-term to an indefinite-term employment contract with the EIB, and (2o) denouncing related infringements by the EIB of the applicant’s fundamental rights (hereafter the ‘Disputed Decisions’);
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 November 2022 — Ommiacrest v Commission

(Case T-697/22)

(2023/C 24/74)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Ommiacrest Trading, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.
Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-681/22)

(2023/C 24/63)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis and M.J. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1614 (1) of 15 September 2022 determining the existing deep-sea fishing areas and establishing a list of areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur or are likely to occur, as regards the establishment of a list of areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur or are likely to occur, set out in Article 2 and in Annex II.

— in addition, declare Article 9(6) and (9) of Regulation 2016/2336 (2) to be invalid, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU.

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that Implementing Regulation 2022/1614, in so far as it establishes areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur or are likely to occur, infringes the basic Regulation and the principle of proportionality: — In that regard, the applicant submits that: (i) the failure to analyse the impact of passive deep-sea fishing gears infringes the basic Regulation and the principle of proportionality; (ii) the determination of the areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur or are likely to occur infringes the basic Regulation and the principle of proportionality.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that paragraphs 6 and 9 of Article 9 of Regulation 2016/2336 are unlawful: — In that regard, the applicant submits that: (i) the reference to an implementing act to supplement essential elements of Regulation 2016/2336 infringes Article 291 TFEU; (ii) the indiscriminate prohibition on fishing with bottom gear in all areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur or are likely to occur infringes the Common Fisheries Policy rules and the principle of proportionality.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1614 of 15 September 2022 determining the existing deep-sea fishing areas and establishing a list of areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur or are likely to occur (OJ 2022 L 242, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/2336 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 establishing specific conditions for fishing for deep-sea stocks in the north-east Atlantic and provisions for fishing in international waters of the north-east Atlantic and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 (OJ 2016 L 354, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 November 2022 — DGNB v EUIPO (representation of a curved white line in a dark square)

(Case T-745/22)

(2023/C 24/103)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen — DGNB eV (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (representation of a curved white line in a dark square) — Application No 18 510 732

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2022 in Case R 338/2022-2

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 incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea(s) in law
—

annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision for a failure to state adequate reasons, or to the extent that they are applied to ‘sociedades gestoras de participações sociais’ (holding companies) or as a result of income being received from a source outside the outermost region;