ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/22

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

(Case T-224/17)

(2017/C 202/37)

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 ‘Bio proof ADAPTA’ — European Union trade mark No 4 368 239

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 2521/2015-5

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

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put forward in Case T-223/17.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/45

Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Der Grüne Punkt v EUIPO — Halston Properties (Representation of a circle with two arrows)

(Case T-253/17)

(2017/C 195/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH (Cologne, Gemany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr and N. Ebbecke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a circle with two arrows) — EU trade mark No 298 273

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2017 in Case R 1357/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— in the event that the other party decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to bear its own costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/29

Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Falmouth University v Commission

(Case T-227/17)

(2017/C 221/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Falmouth University (Falmouth, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Sloane, Barrister, F. Harmel, lawyer and T. Kotsonis, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission finding in relation to ERDF Programming Period 2007-2013, that irregularities had occurred in the operation ‘Enhancing the Creative Knowledge Base of Cornwall’ and that a flat-rate financial correction of 25 % was required;

— order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

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 that the Commission erroneously found that the selection criteria were in breach of Article 44(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission was not entitled to rely on the three additional alleged irregularities.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that in any event, the Commission erroneously found there were three additional alleged irregularities.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has acted manifestly irrationally and disproportionately in deciding that the amount of the financial correction is 25 %.

(1) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, 2004, p. 114)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/37

Action brought on 11 May 2017 — Hermann Bock v EUIPO (Push and Ready)

(Case T-279/17)

(2017/C 213/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hermann Bock GmbH (Verl, Germany) (represented by: S. Maaßen and V. Schoene, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Push and Ready’ — Application for registration No 14 758 205

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2017 in Case R 1279/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, which it received on 1 March 2017, by which the Board of Appeal confirmed that figurative mark No 014758205 was not eligible for registration, and remit the case back to EUIPO for re-examination.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/48

Action brought on 18 May 2017 — adidas v EUIPO — Shoe Branding Europe (Representation of three parallel stripes)

(Case T-307/17)

(2017/C 231/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: I. Fowler and I. Junkar, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of three parallel stripes) — EU trade mark No 12 442 166

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 in Case R 1515/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if it joins as intervener, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/50

Action brought on 23 May 2017 — Nosio v EUIPO (MEZZA)

(Case T-314/17)

(2017/C 231/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and J. Graffer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MEZZA’ — Application for registration No 14 822 506

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2017 in Case R 1518/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— establish that there has been an infringement and incorrect application of Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— declare valid the limitation proposed in Class 33, namely ‘alcoholic beverages, in particular wine and sparkling wine, in bottles and/or containers with a capacity greater than or less than 0,375 litres’;

— determine that there has been an infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO in Case R 1518/2016-5, delivered on 1 March 2017 and notified on 23 March 2017;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs and fees incurred in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement and incorrect application of Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in fact and in law by misinterpreting the evidence cited against the applicants, misapplying the relevant provisions, and failing to provide adequate reasoning, when finding that the applicants participated in the infringement concerning the fuel surcharge. — The applicants put forward that the Commission has failed to prove to the required standard that they participated in the alleged infringement so far as it related to the fuel surcharge. — The applicants further claim that their receipt of press releases was not capable of making them aware of the alleged cartel. — The applicants finally allege that the limited evidence adduced of their contacts with carriers does not prove any anticompetitive conduct by the applicants or show that they knew of or could have foreseen the anticompetitive conduct of other carriers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/44

Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (3000)

(Case T-300/17)

(2017/C 231/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘3000’ — EU trade mark No 12 511 119

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 653/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested measure is in breach of fundamental principles of the EU Treaties relating to the protection of free market and competition on the internal market. — The applicant argues, inter alia, that establishing and ensuring the functioning of the internal market are fundamental principles and obligations upon which the Union is based (Article 26 TFEU). Any measures adopted by the Union must be always in compliance with this defining principle and any measures contrary to it must be always adopted proportionately and in subsidiary manner.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/41

Action brought on 6 June 2017 — Genomic Health v EUIPO (ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE)

(Case T-354/17)

(2017/C 249/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Genomic Health, Inc. (Redwood City, California, United States) (represented by: A. Reid, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE’ — Application for registration No 15 214 257

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2017 in Case R 1682/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law

The Applicant submits that the Contested Decision is incorrect and constitutes an:

— Infringement of the general principles of equal treatment, good administration and legal certainty;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, since other officials in a position identical to that of the applicant were extended on the basis of grounds which are themselves identical to those put forward by the applicant in her application for a one-year extension. In that context, the applicant also raises non-compliance with positive discrimination measures laid down in the Staff Regulations designed to achieve gender balance, this argument being supported by the fact that the new head of delegation appointed to replace her is a man.
—

Since Article 22(1)(c) of Directive 2011/35/EU does not distinguish between relative nullity and absolute nullity, the period of six months for initiating nullification proceedings also applies in the event of absolute nullity, contrary to the principle that no limitation period can apply in the case of nullity of such a kind.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/37

Action brought on 9 June 2017 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Fulia Trading (LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE)

(Case T-373/17)

(2017/C 256/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fulia Trading Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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 figurative mark containing the word elements ‘LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE’ — Application for registration No 13 514 534

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 in Case R 1567/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and thus refuse registration to the contested mark;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings;

— order Fulia to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

The OLAF’s unlawful conducts are, notably, the following ones: illegality of the decision to open the investigation; flaws in the characterization of the investigations and illegality of the extension of the scope of the investigation; violation of the principles for gathering evidence (including distortion and falsification of evidence), of the rights of defence and of various EU provisions (as Articles 339 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Articles 4, 8 and 11(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999, Article 4 of Commission Decision No 1999/396, Article 18 of the OLAF instructions, and Article 13(5) of the Supervisory Committee’s Rules) as well as of the violation of the principle of presumption of innocence and of the right to the protection of personal data.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/53

Action brought on 03 July 2017 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino)

(Case T-416/17)

(2017/C 277/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Papouis Dairies LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus)

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 figurative mark in colour containing the word element ‘fino’ — Application for registration No 11 180 791

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2017 in Case R 2759/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/32

Action brought on 12 July 2017 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-433/17)

(2017/C 300/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Franklin Dehousse (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action both admissible and well founded;

and, consequently,

— annul the decision of 18 May 2017 whereby the defendant rejected the confirmatory application for access to documents submitted by the applicant on 12 April 2017, and the decision of 22 May 2017 whereby the defendant partially rejected the confirmatory application for access to documents submitted by the applicant on 16 March 2017;

— acknowledge the defendant’s liability under Article 340 TFEU;

— order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, assessed ex aequo et bono at ten thousand (10 000) euros, and, in the alternative, one symbolic euro;

— order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law in relation to his claim for annulment and a single plea in law in relation to his claim for damages.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 11 October 2016 concerning public access to documents held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the exercise of its administrative functions (OJ 2016 C 445, p. 3), Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in relation to public access to documents of the institutions and the duty of transparency. In particular, the applicant submits that the contested decisions must be annulled in so far as they refuse to provide certain documents, and provide others either in an incomplete manner or with numerous redactions.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter, in that the contested decisions are vitiated by a failure to provide a statement of reasons or by an insufficient statement of reasons.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

Concerning the non-contractual liability of the European Union, the applicant submits that the defendant institution engaged in misconduct giving rise to liability. That misconduct caused the applicant serious non-material damage in respect of which he is seeking compensation.
—

The applicant maintains that, by the decision of 4 April 2017, the defendant, in taking account of the level of knowledge of the Polish language specified in the application, eliminated him from the competition unjustifiably, because the defendant is aware of his actual level of knowledge of the Polish language on the basis of the information provided in the application for another competition (EPSO/AD/328/16) and of the results of that competition. The applicant states that, according to the case-law of the General Court, the selection board is responsible for duly assessing the diplomas or degrees submitted or the professional competence presented by each candidate, and its decision to eliminate a candidate from a competition is considered to be an act adversely affecting a person, as envisaged in Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 318/14

Action brought on 10 July 2017 — Fruit of the Loom v EUIPO — Takko (FRUIT)

(Case T-424/17)

(2017/C 318/19)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (Bowling Green, Kentucky, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Takko Holding GmbH (Telgte, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FRUIT’ — EU trade mark No 5 077 508

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 in Case R 2119/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/39

Action brought on 28 July 2017 — Edison v EUIPO (EDISON)

(Case T-471/17)

(2017/C 309/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Edison SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Boscariol de Roberto, D. Martucci and I. Gatto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘EDISON’ — Application for registration No 3 315 991

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2017 in Case R 1355/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 330/16

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Álvares de Linera Granda v Commission and SRB

(Case T-498/17)

(2017/C 330/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Álvares de Linera Granda (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Pastor Palomar, F. Arroyo Romero and N. Subuh Falero, lawyers)

Defendants: Commission and SRB

Form of order sought

— Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 addressed to the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) approving a restructuring plan in respect of Banco Popular Español;

— Annul European Commission Decision 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 supporting the resolution plan for Banco Popular Español; and

— By virtue of the provision in Article 340 TFEU, declare that the SRB and European Commission are non-contractually liable and order them to make good the harm caused to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to the arguments raised in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía y Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board; T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán y Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board; T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board and T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

In particular, the applicant claims that the Commission misused its powers in the present case.
—

Order the defendant[s] to remedy the harm and damage resulting from the loss in value of the shares in Banco Popular Español, S.A. held by the applicants, taking the difference in the value of the shares on 6 June 2017, namely EUR 9 212,34, as reference for the compensation, together with interest at the appropriate rate.