ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the contractual provisions binding the applicant to the SRB, which renders the latter contractually liable. The applicant submits that the SRB’s refusal to return the sums corresponding to the cash collateral relating to the irrevocable payment commitments for the years 2016 to 2021 constitutes a breach of that contract.

The applicant also raises a plea in law in the alternative in respect of the 2016-2021 contracts. In that regard, it submits that the SRB’s refusal to return the sums corresponding to the cash collateral relating to the irrevocable payment commitments for the years 2015 to 2021 constitutes unjust enrichment of the SRB.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 October 2021 — Grupa ‘LEW’ v EUIPO — Lechwerke (GRUPALEW.)

(Case T-672/21)

(2021/C 502/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Grupa ‘LEW’ S.A. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: A. Korbela, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lechwerke AG (Augsburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark GRUPALEW. — International registration designating the European Union No 1 344 392

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 August 2021 in Case R 2763/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 25 October 2019 which preceded the contested decision;

— remit Notice of Opposition No B 002 956 640 of 13 September 2017, filed by Lechwerke AG, established in Augsburg (Germany), to EUIPO for review.

Plea in law

— Infringement of Article 10 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625. (1)

(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 (OJ 2018 L 104, p. 1)
—

together with, and in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s contested decision rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the reassignment decision;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 November 2021 — Voco v EUIPO (Shape of packaging)

(Case T-700/21)

(2022/C 2/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Voco GmbH (Cuxhaven, Germany) (represented by: C. Spintig and S. Pietzcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of packaging) — Application for registration No 17 959 421

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 August 2021 in Case R 117/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal including, in particular, the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 November 2021 — Łosowski v EUIPO — Skawiński (KOMBI)

(Case T-730/21)

(2022/C 24/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Sławomir Łosowski (Gdańsk, Poland) (represented by: K. Czub, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grzegorz Skawiński (Sopot, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘KOMBI’ — EU trade mark No 12 534 491

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2021 in Case R 381/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Grzegorz Skawiński to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of personal responsibility. The applicant submits that the aim and content of the contested measures, interpreted in the light of their wording, context and purposes, are contrary to the principle of proportionality, since the prosecuting authority has failed to fulfil its duty to specify in what way the facts are attributable to the person concerned.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 November 2021 — Gerhard Grund Gerüste v EUIPO — Josef Grund Gerüstbau (Josef Grund Gerüstbau)

(Case T-749/21)

(2022/C 37/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Gerhard Grund Gerüste (Kamp-Lintfort, Germany) (represented by: P. Lee, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Josef Grund Gerüstbau GmbH (Erfurt, 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: EU word mark Josef Grund Gerüstbau — EU trade mark No 17 372 178

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2021 in Case R 1925/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and declare EU trade mark No 17 372 178 invalid in its entirety;

— order EUIPO and the intervener 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 19 November 2021 — Refractory Intellectual Property v EUIPO (e-tech)

(Case T-737/21)

(2022/C 37/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Refractory Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark e-tech — Application for registration No 18 274 481

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2021 in Case R 548/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law based on the admissibility of the action. The applicants claim, in that regard, that they have standing as applicants entitled to bring an action for the purposes of Article 8(3) of 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 (1) (‘Regulation 1049/2001’) and as addressees of the contested act within the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU. The applicants further state that they have an interest in bringing proceedings arising from the Commission’s refusal of access to documents in its implied decision of rejection of 24 September 2021 and the infringement of their fundamental rights by the contested decision.
1.

First plea in law, alleging the legal inadequacy of the statement of reasons for the decision. In that regard, the applicant refers to a lack of a specific and thorough examination of the situation and contradictions in the findings that were submitted. In addition, she argues that the concept of ‘occupational disease’ was misinterpreted and that there was a manifest error of assessment.
Action brought on 16 November 2021 — Greenspider v EISMEA

(Case T-733/21)

(2022/C 73/61)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Greenspider GmbH (Germering, Germany) (represented by: G. Vignolo and V. Palmisano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the present action is admissible and well founded under Article 272 TFEU;

— find and declare that Greenspider correctly fulfilled its contractual obligations under the GA (Grant Agreement);

— find and declare that, under Article 1162 of the Belgian Civil Code, in case of doubt, the interpretation of the contract provided by Greenspider prevails over that provided by EISMEA;

— find that there were no grounds for EISMEA to issue a debit note to Greenspider and, consequently, that the amount requested therein is not due;

— find and declare that EISMEA has failed to fulfil its contractual obligations and consequently order EISMEA to pay Greenspider EUR 111 475;

— order EISMEA to pay the legal costs incurred by Greenspider in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that EASME failed to fulfil its contractual obligations. — The applicant submits in that regard that the plea is based on the fact that the reasons given by the Agency justifying the refusal to pay the balance of the eligible costs of the project are unfounded and on the fact that the unit costs are eligible.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the law applicable to the contract. — The applicant submits in that regard that the plea is based on infringement of Article 126 of Regulation No 966/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012; abuse of the principle of the freedom of choice: infringement and incorrect application of Article 1162 of the Belgian Civil Code and of Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 91/13/EEC (2) of 5 April 1993; breach of the principle of good faith in the execution of the contract and misuse of rights; breach of the principle of good administration; breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations; and infringement of the principle of proportionality.

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

(2) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 December 2021 — SC Ha Ha Ha Production v EUIPO — The Smiley Company (SMILEY)

(Case T-785/21)

(2022/C 109/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SC Ha Ha Ha Production SRL (Calinesti, Romania) (represented by: O. Anghel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SMILEY — Application for registration No 17 569 641

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decisions: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2021 in Case R 2936/2019-5 relative to the revocation of its decision issued on 15 January 2021 and Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2021 in Case R 2936/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2021 relative to the revocation of its Decision of 15 January 2021;

— set aside of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 21 October 2021 in order to register the requested European trade mark, SMILEY no. 17 569 641, for the class of products and services 41;

— order the defendant and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred during the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that, by including High Purity Aluminium Foil within the scope of the measures, the Commission had committed a manifest error of assessment of the evidence provided during the investigation and infringed the principle of proportionality. In particular, the applicant submits that there is robust evidence of the absence of Union production of High Purity Aluminium Foil.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 January 2022 — CIMV v Commission

(Case T-26/22)

(2022/C 109/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie industrielle de la matière végétale (CIMV) (Neuilly sur-Seine, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret, R. Rard and P. Renié, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare the present action admissible and well founded;

— Annul the contested decision;

— In the alternative, annul Article 3 of the contested decision in so far as it provides for enforcement;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Decision C(2021) 7932 final of the European Commission of 28 October 2021, concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 5 888 214,59, plus interest, owed by the CIMV, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging a clear substantive error resulting from the failure to take into account the schedule proposed by the CIMV and failure to state adequate reasons for the contested decision.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the right to be heard and the principle of sound administration.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 January 2022 — Canai Technology/EUIPO — WE Brand (HE&ME)

(Case T-25/22)

(2022/C 95/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Canai Technology Co. Ltd (Guangzhou, China) (represented by: J. Gallego Jiménez, E. Sanz Valls, P. Bauzá Martínez, Y. Hernández Viñes and C. Marí Aguilar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WE Brand Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark HE&ME — International registration designating the European Union No 1 426 777

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2021 in Case R 1390/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO (and if it intervenes, the other party to the proceedings before the EUIPO) to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 January 2022 — Vallegre v EUIPO — Joseph Phelps Vineyards (PORTO INSÍGNIA)

(Case T-33/22)

(2022/C 119/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA (Sabrosa, Portugal) (represented by: E. Armero Lavie and G. Marín Raigal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joseph Phelps Vineyards LLC (St. Helena, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark PORTO INSÍGNIA — Application for registration No 16 393 688

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2021 in Case R 894/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Ciar v EUIPO — Motion (Sorting device)

(Case T-100/22)

(2022/C 148/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Ciar SpA (Pesaro, Italy) (represented by: L. Goglia, S. Lavagnini, B. Villa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Motion SpA (Forlì, Italy)

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 (Sorting device) — Community design No 002 237 495-0009

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2021 in Case R 50/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and, therefore, confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division or, in any event, declare the invalidity of the contested design;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement and incorrect application of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement and incorrect application of Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 63(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Action brought on 3 February 2022 — Novasol v ECHA

(Case T-70/22)

(2022/C 138/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Novasol (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: C. Alter and G. Bouton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, on the basis of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, ECHA’s decision SME D (2021)8531-DC, of 25 November 2021, in which it found that the applicant cannot be recognised as an SME and is not eligible for the reduced fees for a medium-sized enterprise, as claimed at the time of the submissions;

— order ECHA to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that ECHA erred in law in the contested decision, on the ground that it misinterpreted the legal rules applicable to the assessment of the size of small and medium-sized enterprises (‘SMEs’) referred to in the REACH Regulation, (1) in Recommendation 2003/361 (2) and in Regulation No 340/2008. (3)

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the facts of the case, in that the contested decision is based on an incorrect reading of the accuracy of the facts on which the classification as an SME is based, even though ECHA had all the information necessary to assess the applicant’s size.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to state reasons and of the principle of sound administration, in so far as, despite the detailed and documented observations made by the applicant in order to determine the dimensions of the enterprise, ECHA did not take any account of the arguments submitted.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3).

(2) Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36).

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2008 L 107, p. 6).
—

in the alternative, in the event that the Court does not take into consideration the application for annulment of the contested resolution in its entirety, annul that resolution in part, that is to say, the part corresponding to point Y, which states: ‘whereas a fundamentalist organisation, Ordo Iuris, which is closely linked to the ruling coalition, has been a driving force behind the campaigns which are undermining human rights and gender equality in Poland, including the attempts to ban abortion, the calls for Poland’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention and the calls for the creation of so-called LGBTI-free zones; whereas cultural and religious values in Poland are therefore being abused as reasons to impede the full realisation of women’s rights, equality for women and their right to make decisions about their own bodies’;
1.

First plea, alleging that the defendant infringed the rights of the defence and the adversarial principle, enshrined in Articles 41 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 March 2022 — Katjes Fassin v EUIPO (THE FUTURE IS PLANT-BASED)

(Case T-133/22)

(2022/C 171/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz and S. Stolzenburg-Wiemer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark THE FUTURE IS PLANT-BASED — Application No 18 310 582

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2021 in Case R 1023/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 28 February 2022 — Adega Ponte da Boga v EUIPO — Viñedos y Bodegas Dominio de Tares (P3 DOMINIO DE TARES)

(Case T-107/22)

(2022/C 165/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Adega Ponte da Boga, SL (Ourense, Spain) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Viñedos y Bodegas Dominio de Tares, SA (San Román de Bembibre, 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 P3 DOMINIO DE TARES — European Union trade mark No 16 691 651

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 December 2021 in Case R 479/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and any interveners liable to appear in the present proceedings in support of the contested decision to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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