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

Action brought on 29 April 2020 — Moviescreens Rental v EUIPO — the airscreen company (AIRSCREEN)

(Case T-250/20)

(2020/C 262/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Moviescreens Rental GmbH (Damme, Germany) (represented by: D. Schulz and P. Stelzig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, 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 figurative mark AIRSCREEN — EU trade mark No 3 244 662

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2020 in Case R 2527/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the contested decision, in so far as in it, the Board of Appeal upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division, which had rejected the application for invalidity of the contested trade mark in relation to the goods at issue in the present case in Class 9 Inflatable motion picture screens; giant screens; silver screens Class 17 Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) frames fillable with air; flexible PVC surfaces Class 19 Transportable structures, not of metal; giant screen frames, not of metal;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 June 2020 — Micron Technology v EUIPO (INTELLIGENCE, ACCELERATED)

(Case T-386/20)

(2020/C 271/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Micron Technology, Inc. (Boise, Idaho, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark INTELLIGENCE, ACCELERATED — Application for registration No 17 959 758

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2020 in Case R 2873/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alternatively, alter the contested decision such that it is now held that European Union trade mark application does not offend against Articles 7(1)(b) or (c) or both;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs to the applicant, the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO — Dermavita Company (JUVEDERM)

(Case T-397/20)

(2020/C 279/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor and T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dermavita Company SARL (Beirut, Lebanon)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark JUVEDERM — European Union trade mark No 2 196 822

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2020 in Case R 877/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul points 3 and 4 of the operative part of the decision insofar as it dismissed the applicant appeal against the revocation of its EU trade mark registration No 2 196 822 JUVEDERM for ‘dermal implants’, and ordered the applicant to bear its own costs;

— order EUIPO and Dermavita Company Ltd to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant, including those incurred by the applicant before the Fourth Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 16 June 2020 — OC (*1) v Commission

(Case T-384/20)

(2020/C 279/58)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: OC (*1) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— order the European Commission to pay the applicant an amount totalling EUR 1 100 000 to compensate for the non-material harm that she has suffered up until today, and

— order the European Commission to pay all the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. By the present action, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 268 and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, compensation for the harm that she has suffered on account of unlawful acts and omissions of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), following the publication by the latter of Press Release No 13/2020 by which personal data and false information that related to the applicant unlawfully leaked out.

2. According to the applicant, in (a) publishing (by the press release directed at the public at large) personal data of the applicant and (b) disseminating inaccurate and false information in the press release, OLAF seriously infringed rules that confer rights on individuals.

3. In particular, by those acts, it infringed Articles 4(1)(a) and (b), 5, 6 and 15(3) of Regulation 2018/1725, (1) Articles 10(5) and 9(1) of Regulation No 883/2013, (2) and the presumption of innocence, the right to good administration and the principle of proportionality.

(*1) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).

(2) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ 2013 L 248, p. 1).
—

annul the Commission’s Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/550 of 12 February 2020 amending Annexes II and IV to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the temporary withdrawal of the arrangements referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 in respect of certain products originating in the Kingdom of Cambodia in part, namely with regard to the temporary withdrawal of the GSP preferences for all customs codes that are affecting GMAC members, i.e. the HS codes mentioned in the table in Article 1 subparagraph 1 and all customs HS codes mentioned in the table in Article 1 subparagraph 2, except for HS code 1212 93;
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the application of the IPS (Institutional Protection Scheme) indicator of Commission Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) infringes higher-ranking law — The Commission has no discretion when adopting Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 as a delegated act within the meaning of Article 290 TFEU, which would result in limited judicial review. The same applies to the application of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 by the defendant. — In applying the IPS indicator, the significance of the applicant’s membership of the institutional guarantee scheme of the Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe was misjudged. — Under the second sentence of Article 6(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, the defendant should also have taken account of the low probability of the institution concerned being wound up and thus of the use of the Single Resolution Fund and should have observed the principle of proportionality.
Action brought on 27 June 2020 — Global Translation Solutions v Commission

(Case T-404/20)

(2020/C 297/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Global Translation Solutions ltd. (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: C. Mifsud-Bonnici, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, and all related decisions of the defendant;

— order the defendant to pay costs.

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 defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that they are founded on a serious and manifest error of assessment in the formulation of the standard marking grid for the evaluation of the revision test.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that the formulation of the standard marking grid was in breach of the law, inter alia Article 160(1) the Financial Regulation, (1) and contrary to the general principles of Union law, including, public procurement inter alia equal treatment and transparency.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that the defendant has failed to state reasons, as required by Union law and CJEU case-law, for its decision to reject the applicant’s bid.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that that the defendant’s decisions of 17 April 2020 (i) to award Lot 22 EN>MT in connection with procurement procedure TRAD19 to the successful bidder, and (ii) to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 22, are unlawful, on the basis that the defendant’s conduct throughout the correspondence exchanged with the applicant after 17 April 2020, in particular, with respect to its explanations on the standard marking grid and the ‘pre-defined errors’, was contrary to general principles of due diligence, good administration and public procurement.

(1) Regulation 2018/1046 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).
—

from the recovery order, including annexes, it is not possible to understand what specific costs were rejected by EASME, and on what basis these costs were rejected. The right to good administration enshrined in article 41 in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and more specifically the obligation to state reasons, is therefore infringed.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 July 2020 — S. Tous v EUIPO — Zhejiang China-Best Import & Export (Lamp)

(Case T-492/20)

(2020/C 313/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: S. Tous, SL (Manresa, Spain) (represented by: D. Gómez Sánchez and J.L. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang China-Best Import & Export Co. Ltd (Hangzhou, China)

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 (Luminaires) — Community design No 4422343-0012

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2020 in Case R 1553/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the proprietor of the contested design to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including those incurred in respect of the proceedings before the Invalidity Division and the Third Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 (in conjunction with Article 6, Article 7 and Article 9(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council).
Action brought on 10 August 2020 — Munich v EUIPO — Tone Watch (MUNICH10A.T.M.)

(Case T-502/20)

(2020/C 329/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Munich, SL (La Torre de Claramunt, Spain) (represented by: M. Guix Vilanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tone Watch, SL (Madrid, 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: Word mark MUNICH10A.T.M. — European Union trade mark No 10 727 899

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2020 in Case R 2472/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the contested decision and declare Community trade mark MUNICH10A.T.M. No. 10 727 899, of which Importaciones Issar, S.L. is the owner, invalid in relation to goods in Classes 9 (Sunglasses), 14 (Horological and chronometric instruments, boxes for watches (presentation)) and 35 (Wholesaling, retailing and sale via global computer networks of sunglasses, precious metals and their alloys, jewellery, horological and chronometric instruments) of the International Classification, uphold that decision in so far as it declares the mark invalid with respect to services in Class 35 (Advertising, Business management, Business administration, Office functions), uphold the cross-appeal and cancel the registration of the mark in relation to goods in Classes 14, namely, precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, not included in other classes, and 35, rental of vending machines, and order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— The contested decision did not find that the earlier marks with the common element ‘MUNICH’ have a reputation and wrongly concluded that Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council is not applicable in the present case;

— There is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in relation to the marks at issue;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 August 2020 — Soapland v EUIPO — Norma (Manòu)

(Case T-504/20)

(2020/C 320/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Soapland GmbH & Co. OHG (Andernach, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Manòu — Application for registration No 14 704 481

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2020 in Case R 1504/2019-1

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 27 August 2020 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Pfizer (RUXIMBLIS)

(Case T-542/20)

(2020/C 339/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark RUXIMBLIS — Application No. 17 865 738

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2020 in Case R 1877/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 August 2020 — VF International v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)

(Case T-518/20)

(2020/C 339/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: T. van Innis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: National Geographic Society (Washington, District of Columbia, United States)

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 figurative mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC in colour yellow and black — European Union trade mark No 2 148 799

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2020 in Case R 1664/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Sütas süt ürünleri (PINAR Tam kivaminda Süzme Peynir Yumusacik ve Leziz)

(Case T-560/20)

(2020/C 371/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Yadex International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: N. Johnson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sütas süt ürünleri AS (Bursa, Turkey)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark PINAR Tam kivaminda Süzme Peynir Yumusacik ve Leziz — International registration No 1 396 036

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2020 in Case R 2126/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and allow the applicant’s appeal of 23 September 2019 against the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 July 2019;

— order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 August 2020 — Guasch Pubill v EUIPO — Napkings (Cleaning cloths, Table linen)

(Case T-538/20)

(2020/C 359/16)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Marcos Guasch Pubill (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Napkings, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design (Cleaning cloths, Table linen) — Community design No 650 627-0003

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2020 in Case R 1051/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision, upholding the plea of res judicata, and order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— in the alternative, reject the pleas relied upon, annul the contested decision and give another decision in its place setting aside the declaration of invalidity in its entirety, or refer the case back to EUIPO so that it may examine the ‘additional grounds’ on which it has yet to give a ruling, and in any event order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 52(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

— Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Alessio and Others v ECB

(Case T-620/20)

(2020/C 390/67)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Roberto Alessio (Turin, Italy) and 56 other applicants (represented by: M. Condinanzi and L. Boggio, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decisions and declare them null and void, after finding them unlawful;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision to dissolve the administrative and supervisory bodies of the supervised entity (Banca Carige S.p.A.) and to replace them with three temporary administrators and a supervisory committee for the purposes of Articles 69-octiesdecies, 70 and 98 of Legislative Decree No 385 of 1 September 1993 — ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of 1 January 2019, and against the decision extending the special administration of the supervised entity approved by ECB decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 on the basis of Articles 69-octiesdecies, 70 and 98 of Legislative Decree No 385 of 1 September 1993 — ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-13, as well as against subsequent measures resulting therefrom and, in particular, decisions extending the special administration of the supervised entity.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-612/20, Malacalza Investimenti v ECB.