ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/48

Action brought on 26 May 2016 — GeoClimaDesign v EUIPO — GEO Gesellschaft für ENERGIE und Oekologie (GEO)

(Case T-280/16)

(2016/C 260/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: GeoClimaDesign AG (Fürstenwalde/Spree, Germany) (represented by: B. Lanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: GEO Gesellschaft für ENERGIE und Oekologie GmbH (Langenhorn, Germany)

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: European Union word mark ‘GEO’ — European Union trade mark No 8 331 076

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2016 in Case R 1679/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the mark in question or, in the alternative, the mark for the organisational preparation of building projects in the field of renewable energies, in particular wind power stations and wind parks of Class 35, real estate management and brokerage services in the realisation of projects in the area of renewable energies, in particular wind energy plants and wind parks; the repair and maintenance of wind energy plants in Class 37 and the technical project design of projects in the field of energy supply; the technical project design of projects in the field of renewable energies, in particular the field of wind energy plants and wind parks; services of engineers in the field of renewable energies, in particular in the field of wind energy plants; the drawing up of technical and academic opinions in Class 42;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law: irregularities of internal procedure and invalidity of the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016 and the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 April 2016, imposing on the applicant the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of 5 days. The first contested decision undermines the right to good administration and the principle of equality of arms. The second contested decision undermines the right to have ones affairs handled impartially and fairly by the institutions and bodies of the European Union and the right to a fair trial.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(2) of the Treaty, incorrect assessment as to meeting the requirements of heading 19 (Clause 2.6) of the [European Union] framework [for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011)], infringement of the Treaty principles on public procurement and incorrect application of Article 7(2) of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14; ‘the Postal Services Directive’) — The methods of financing the provision of universal services applied by the Member States must be consistent with the principles of non-discrimination, transparency and equal treatment (including the choice of the provider of universal postal services by way of competition) arising from the provisions of the TFEU on the internal market freedoms, and also with Article 106(2) TFEU, which was not the case in the present dispute.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/30

Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-554S)

(Case T-316/16)

(2016/C 287/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SDC-554S’ — Application for registration No 12 780 581

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 1575/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 107 TFUE.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/27

Action brought on 19 June 2016 — Cafés Pont v EUIPO — Giordano Vini (Art’s Café)

(Case T-309/16)

(2016/C 296/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Cafés Pont, SL (Sabadell, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. M. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Giordano Vini SpA (Diano d’Alba, Italy)

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 ‘Art’s Café’ — European Union trade mark No 5 622 345

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 01/04/2016 in Case R 1110/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— deliver a judgment granting the application, revoking the cancellation on the grounds of non-use of European Union trade mark No 5 622 345 and confirming the use of that trade mark; and

— order the defendant and any interveners to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
—

order the Commission to pay to the applicant the expatriation allowances that he has been entitled to since 1 September 2007 plus default interest calculated at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points on the sums already paid to the applicant by way of arrears of remuneration (expatriation allowance) and on those sums still due, from their respective due date until full payment, subject to the deduction of the sums already paid;
—

annul the CEPOL decision no 17/2014/DIR dated 23 May 2014, providing for the relocation of CEPOL in Budapest, Hungary, as from 1st October 2014 and informing the appellants that ‘Non compliance with this instruction will be considered as resignation with the effect of 30 September 2014’,
—

primarily, annul the decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (Directorate-General for Energy — SRD.3 — Financial management) of 23 May 2016 (Reference No: ENER/SRD.3/JCM/cID(2016)2952913), which merely confirms the previous measure of 6 July 2015 (Move.srd.3.dir(2015)2669621), together with the measure of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (Directorate-General for Energy — SRD.3 — Financial management) of 14 June 2016 (Reference No: SRD.3/JCM/cl/D(2016)4477388) communicating Debit Note No 3 241 608 548 ordering payment of EUR 494 871,39 by 28 July 2016, annulling as a result the decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (Directorate-General for Energy — SRD.3 — Financial management) of 6 July 2015 (Reference No: Move.srd3.dir(2015)2669621), in so far as that decision does not allow reimbursement of the costs incurred by Terna in connection with Projects Nos 2009-E255/09-ENER/09-TEN-E-564583 and 2007-E221/07/2007-TREN/07/TEN-E-S07.91403 and imposes an obligation to repay the sums granted in connection with those projects in the amounts set out in the table appended to the contested measure;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/31

Action brought on 28 June 2016 — European Social Enterprise Law Association v EUIPO (EUROPEAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE LAW ASSOCIATION)

(Case T-353/16)

(2016/C 314/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Social Enterprise Law Association (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Fletcher, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘EUROPEAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE LAW ASSOCIATION’ — Application for registration No 14 062 129

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 Aprilie 2016 in Case R 2208/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the Applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/48

Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Altunis v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)

(Case T-438/16)

(2016/C 343/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, S. Bergia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hotel Cipriani Srl (Venice, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration of the word mark ‘CIPRIANI’ designating the European Union — International registration No 1 127 870 designating the European Union

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2016 in Case R 1889/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition filed by Hotel Cipriani s.r.l.; or

— remit the proceedings to EUIPO in order for it to rule in compliance with the judgment to be delivered;

— order full reimbursement of the costs of the present proceedings, including those of the previous procedural stages before EUIPO, in favour of Altunis.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 15, 42(2) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 23(3) of Regulation No 2868/95 in relation to genuine use of the mark of Hotel Cipriani;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/45

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Mama)

(Case T-422/16)

(2016/C 343/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Beste Mama’ — Application No 14 169 304

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 in Case R 95/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Dogg Label v EUIPO — Chemoul (JAPRAG)

(Case T-406/16)

(2016/C 364/14)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Dogg Label (Marseille, France) (represented by: M. Angelier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party before the Board of Appeal: Patrick Chemoul (Paris, France)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: the other party before the Board of Appeal

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘JAPRAG’ — EU trade mark No 8 820 301

Proceedings before EUIPO: invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 in Case R 2336/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision;

— order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to assent to the action for annulment brought by the company DOGG LABEL;

— declare invalid the Community trade mark ‘JAPRAG’ No 8 820 301 for all the goods in Classes 18 and 25, on the basis of Article 53(1)(a) of the EU trade mark regulation in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/24

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Sensi Vigne & Vini v EUIPO — El Grifo (CONTADO DEL GRIFO)

(Case T-434/16)

(2016/C 350/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sensi Vigne & Vini Srl (Lamporecchio, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Grifo, SA (San Bartolomé de Lanzarote, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CONTADO DEL GRIFO’ — Application for registration No 12 097 416

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2016 in Case R 2218/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside EUIPO’s decision of 25 May 2016 in its entirety;

— uphold the present action, ruling on the substance of the case in favour of registration of EU Trade Mark No 12 097 416, filed on 28 August 2013 in Class 33;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of those before EUIPO.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/11

Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Maximum Play v EUIPO (MAXPLAY)

(Case T-400/16)

(2016/C 371/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Maximum Play, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MAXPLAY’ — Application for registration No 14 047 963

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 in Case R 2273/2015-4

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 Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 383/23

Action brought on 31 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Alles wird gut)

(Case T-622/16)

(2016/C 383/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘Alles wird gut’ — Application No 14 170 062

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2016 in Case R 212/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/21

Action brought on 9 August 2016 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-443/16)

(2016/C 371/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul notices of open competition EPSO/AD/323/16 and EPSO/AD/324/16.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests before the General Court the notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/323/16 and EPSO/AD/324/16 to draw up reserve lists with, respectively, 40 places to fill vacant Administrator posts (AD 7) for the profile — Investigators: EU expenditure, anti-corruption, customs and trade, tobacco and counterfeit goods; and 10 places for Administrator posts (AD 9) for the profile — Investigators: Team leaders, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 26 May 2016, No C 187 A.

The same competition notices are the subject of Case T-401/16, Spain v Commission.

The pleas in law and the main arguments are similar to those relied on in that case.

The applicant alleges, in particular, infringement of Articles 18 TFEU, 24 TFEU, and 342 TFEU, and of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, of the principle of proportionality and of the substantive rules inherent in the nature and purpose of notices of competition, misuse of powers and infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation 1/58.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment as it held the applicant solely liable for a conduct for which other infringers were found to be responsible while the applicant’s liability is only derivative, and because it distributed the extra burden arising from the other infringer’s reduced liability exclusively to the detriment of the applicant.
—

alternatively, in the event that the Court should not be entirely persuaded of the relevance and truthfulness of the applicant’s pleas in law and fact, in the interests of the sound administration of justice taking account of the undeniable relationship between the alleged facts on which the contested decision is based and those which are the subject of the criminal investigation opened by the President of the European Parliament: — stay the proceedings pending a final decision, which is res judicata, delivered by the French ordinary court hearing the proceedings initiated by the President of the European Parliament; — consequently order a stay of execution of the contested decision until the end of the proceedings.
1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers. — The applicant takes the view that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment concerning the interests of the service and concerning equivalence of posts. She seeks to argue that her reassignment to the post of adviser on modernisation of education was motivated not by the interests of the service but by her hierarchical superiors’ desire to isolate her professionally and to impose on her an anticipated disciplinary penalty. The decision is thus vitiated by a misuse of powers in so far as such an assignment is, moreover, contrary to the interests of the service, in view of the applicant’s areas of competence and the need to fill vacant Head of Unit posts within DG EAC. — She also takes the view that the reassignment did not observe the principle of equivalence of posts. The new tasks assigned to the applicant are, by their nature, their importance and their scope, below those conferred on an Adviser in Grade AD 13. Furthermore, the post does not correspond to a genuine need of the service, as required by Article 2 of Decision C(2008) 5029/2.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/58

Action brought on 12 September 2016 — PM v ECHA

(Case T-656/16)

(2016/C 402/69)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: PM (represented by: C. Zambrano Almero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should admit its action against decision No SME(2016) 3198 and annul that decision on the basis that PM is a small and medium-sized enterprise and therefore, since the correct amount of charges required by law with regard to such an enterprise have been paid, the registration applied for should be granted.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant raises a single plea, based on the definition of a small and medium-sized enterprise set out in Article 2(1) of the annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC on the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. The applicant, together with the group of undertakings that it is a part of, claims that it satisfies the conditions laid down in that article.
—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1136 of 12 July 2016 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2015/2430 (OJ L 188, 13.7.2016, p. 21), in so far as it concerns Gamaa Islamya Egypte;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/31

Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Nadal Esteban (STYLO & KOTON)

(Case T-687/16)

(2016/C 410/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and E. Stoyanov Edissonov, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joaquín Nadal Esteban (Alcobendas, Spain)

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: figurative mark containing the word elements ‘STYLO & KOTON’ — EU trade mark No 9 917 436

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2016 in Case R 1779/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that the trade mark at issue be declared invalid by EUIPO;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea: infringement of Article 266 TFEU in so far as the contested decisions are not compatible with the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘CST’) of 15 April 2015 in Case F-96/13 in relation to its grounds which form the necessary support for the operative part, in the sense that they are indispensable for determining the exact meaning of the ruling in the operative part. — The applicant considers that Article 266 TFEU requires the Commission to ensure that any act replacing the annulled act is not tainted by the same irregularities as those identified in the judgment ordering annulment, which is the position in the present case.
First ground of appeal, alleging that the judgment under appeal was delivered by a formation of the Tribunal composed in infringement of Article 27(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the CST.

The appellant is of the view that that infringement is characterised by the fact that Council Decision 2016/454 appointing three Judges to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal is itself vitiated by a lack of jurisdiction, an infringement of Articles 257 TFEU and 281 TFEU, an infringement of Annex I to Protocol No 3 to the Statute of the Court of Justice, an infringement of Article 13(2) TEU and an infringement of Council Decision 2005/150/EC of 18 January 2005 concerning the conditions and arrangements governing the submission and processing of applications for appointment as a judge of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.