ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/51

Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Buck-Chemie v EUIPO — Henkel (Representation of flushing systems for water closets)

(Case T-296/17)

(2017/C 239/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Buck-Chemie GmbH (Herrenberg, Germany) (represented by: C. Schultze, J. Ossing, R.-D. Härer, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger, C. Brockmann and C. Gehweiler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 1663618-0003

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 2113/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and the other party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Court and before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 62 and Article 63 of Regulation No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 25(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 3(a) of Regulation No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission of 9 February 2017 ordering the applicant to submit to an inspection under Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1; ‘the contested decision’). According to the applicant, the contested decision is unlawful in that it is based on provisions which run counter to the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the ECHR’). In that regard, it argues that: — Article 20 of Regulation No 1/2003 infringes the right to an effective remedy guaranteed under Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR in that it does not provide for any effective means of redress against the Commission’s inspection operations; — Article 20 of Regulation No 1/2003 also infringes the principle of equality of arms guaranteed under Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR in that it does not provide for access to the documents underlying the Commission’s inspection decision or their communication.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/45

Action brought on 9 June 2017 — Linak v EUIPO — ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical (Shape of electrically operated lifting column)

(Case T-368/17)

(2017/C 249/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Linak A/S (Nordborg, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design ‘Electrically operated lifting column’ — Community design No 101 159-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 in Case R 1412/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the Applicant.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/56

Action brought on 26 May 2017 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)

(Case T-328/17)

(2017/C 239/69)

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 Board328 of Appeal: M. J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

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 element ‘BBQLOUMI’ — Application for registration No 13 069 034

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16/03/2017 in Case R 497/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, concerning the refusal of access to OLAF’s final report sent to the European Commission, in that: — the contested decision infringes Article 15(3) TFEU, Article 42 of the Charter and Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents; — once the debit note had been issued and the decision to proceed with recovery by offsetting had been taken, the applicant should have had access to OLAF’s final report in order to exercise its rights of defence fully; — the Commission should have agreed on the national conditions as regards the right of access to documents on which an unfavourable decision is based; — the Grant Contract provided that investigation reports and evaluations of the Commission should be notified; — the Commission could in any event have disclosed a document by redacting certain passages.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/36

Action brought on 12 June 2017 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Bee Fee Group (LV POWER ENERGY DRINK)

(Case T-372/17)

(2017/C 256/40)

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: Bee Fee Group LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus)

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: EU figurative mark in black, red and white containing the word elements ‘LV POWER ENERGY DRINK’ — EU trade mark No 12 898 219

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 in Case R 906/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and thus declare invalid the contested mark;

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

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/46

Action brought on 11 May 2017 — UI (*1) v Council

(Case T-282/17)

(2017/C 277/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UI (*1) (represented by: J. Diaz Cordova, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Order the defendant to establish him to the post of AST/SC 2 in the General Secretariat of the Council (DG A3).

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant essentially calls into question the legality of the procedures which, the applicant maintains, have led to the wrongful failure to establish him in the post concerned. The applicant makes particular reference to the drawing up by the defendant of an additional document which, the applicant alleges, should not be taken into account in his evaluation, having been submitted long after the end of his probationary period. The applicant alleges that the defendant breached certain fundamental rights, including the right to private life, the confidentiality of communications and the right to submit complaints, when evaluating the applicant’s case.

(*1) Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.
—

order the EIB to pay her compensation because of (i) the non-material damage which she suffered as a result of the psychological harassment by the Director for Communication confirmed in the contested decision and award her EUR 121 992 (one hundred and twenty-one thousand nine hundred and ninety-two euros) in that regard, (ii) the non-material damage which she suffered, and which can be separated from the illegality on which the partial annulment of the contested decision is based, and award her EUR 25 000 (twenty-five thousand euros) in that regard, and (iii) the non-material damage resulting from, first, the breach by the Director-General for Personnel of the independence of the reporting procedure conducted by the Compliance Officer and, second, the intimidation of the applicant or the threat of retaliation made by the Director-General for Personnel, and award the applicant EUR 25 000 (twenty-five thousand euros) in that regard;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/40

Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Windspiel Manufaktur v EUIPO (Representation of a bottle stopper)

(Case T-489/17)

(2017/C 309/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Windspiel Manufaktur GmbH (Daun, Germany) (represented by: O. Löffel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU position mark (Representation of a bottle stopper) — Application for registration No 15 024 987

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2017 in Case R 1374/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/38

Action brought on 20 July 2017 — Bopp v EUIPO (Representation of an equiangular octagon)

(Case T-460/17)

(2017/C 300/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Carsten Bopp (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by: F. Pröckl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Sign (Representation of an equiangular octagon) — Application for registration No 11 005 196

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2017 in Case R 1954/2016-4

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;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 318/24

Action brought on 26 July 2017 — Sedes Holding v EUIPO (gratis)

(Case T-495/17)

(2017/C 318/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Sedes Holding AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: K. Ongena and C. Du Jardin, 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 ‘gratis’ — Application for EU trade mark No 15 950 637

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2017 in Case R 507/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, join the case dealt with in the present application with the action against the decision of EUIPO in Case R 506/2017-2 for the purposes of the oral procedure in view of the connection between them;

— declare the action set out in the application to be admissible and well founded, and accordingly: — primarily, annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to register EU trade mark application No 15 950 637 for the figurative mark GRATIS in the trade mark register for all goods claimed under that registration; — in the alternative, annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to register EU trade mark application No 15 950 637 for the figurative mark GRATIS in the trade mark register for ‘perfumery, cosmetic products, fragrances and deodorants for personal use’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 318/14

Action brought on 12 July 2017 — younique v EUIPO — Jafer Enterprises R&D (younique products)

(Case T-434/17)

(2017/C 318/20)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: younique LLC (Utah, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jafer Enterprises R&D, SLU (Granollers, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Party applying for the trade mark in question: Applicant

Trade mark in question: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘younique products’ — Application for registration No 1 191 504

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 in Case R 1564/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant the costs relating to and occasioned by the present application as well as the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal; or, in the event that the other party in the contested decision appears as an intervener, order that the defendant and the other party in the contested decision be held jointly and severally liable to pay to the applicant the costs relating to and occasioned by the present application as well as the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 338/17

Action brought on 7 August 2017 — OCU and Others v SRB

(Case T-512/17)

(2017/C 338/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios (OCU) (Madrid, Spain) and 37 other applicants

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare that Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 are unlawful and inapplicable;

— order the defendant, the Single Resolution Board, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme regarding the Banco Popular Español, S.A.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and 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, T-497/17, Sánchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18(1)(a) and (4)(c) of 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 (1) insofar as the Banco Popular was not ‘failing’ as described in those provisions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/45

Action brought on 18 August 2017 — CheapFlights International v EUIPO — Momondo Group (Cheapflights)

(Case T-565/17)

(2017/C 347/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CheapFlights International Ltd (Speenoge, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Momondo Group 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 ‘Cheapflights’ — Application for registration No 3 485 349

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2017 in Case R 1893/2011-G

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Momondo Group Limited, if it should intervene in these proceedings to bear the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 64(6) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

— Infringement of Article 8(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96;
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1) and of Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/22

Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Taberna Ángel Sierra and Others v SRB

(Case T-525/17)

(2017/C 357/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Taberna Ángel Sierra, SL (Madrid, Spain) and 67 other applicants (represented by: P. Rúa Sobrino, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;

— Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 allowing the resolution of the Banco Popular Español, S.A.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el 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, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of sound administration, violation of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, violation of the right to be heard and violation of the adversarial principle.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/39

Action brought on 18 September 2017 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-629/17)

(2017/C 369/53)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 4682 final of 6 July 2017 cancelling part of the European Social Fund assistance for the operational programme Education for Competitiveness under the ‘Convergence’ and ‘Regional Competitiveness and Employment’ objectives in the Czech Republic and part of the European Regional Development Fund assistance for the operational programmes Research and Development for Innovations under the ‘Convergence’ objective in the Czech Republic and Technical Assistance under the ‘Convergence’ and ‘Regional Competitiveness and Employment’ objectives in the Czech Republic;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 99(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 (1) laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, in conjunction with Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (2) on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts. The Commission imposed financial corrections for alleged irregularities in awards of public contracts which, however, constitute a procedure permitted by Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18. The Commission wrongly takes the view that the exception to the rules for the award of public contracts under Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18 concerning programme content applies only to contracting authorities which are broadcasters.

(1) OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25.

(2) OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.
1.

First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and, secondly, infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the applicant’s rights of defence.
—

Take note of the present action and the supporting documents, declare it admissible and consider as lodged this application for annulment of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 adopting the resolution scheme for the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A, and annul that decision.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 84 CEAA, procedural irregularities committed by the defendant Agency, infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care and infringement of the rights of defence of the applicant and, in particular, of his right to be heard.
1.

First plea in law: The protective purpose of investigations would not be undermined by the disclosure of the contested documents The subject matter of EU Pilot Case 8572/15 is the large-scale and extensive infringements of the right to independent and impartial judicial authorities and the right to a fair trial by the Hungarian courts through the application of legislation relating to the conversion of so-called foreign currency loans into Hungarian currency. That legislation infringes the principle of the separation of powers as it interferes with private legal relationships between citizens. In particular, that legislation forces borrowers to bear the losses resulting from the exchange rate risk and prohibits challenges to the validity of credit agreements from being brought before the courts. Negotiations between the European Commission and the Hungarian Government with a view to bringing the Hungarian legal system into conformity with EU law are inappropriate for achieving this objective since the courts in a State based on the rule of law are independent. The disclosure of the contested documents would not undermine the protective purpose of investigations but would rather support that purpose since only a public discussion can alter the case-law of the Hungarian courts.