ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 9 February 2022 — Schwa-Medico v EUIPO — Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte (STIWELL)

(Case T-76/22)

(2022/C 148/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Schwa-Medico, Medizinische Apparate, Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH (Ehringshausen, Germany) (represented by: E. Fortunet and P. Marchiset, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GesmbH (Innsbruck, Austria)

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 STIWELL — European Union trade mark No o 4 072 542

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 November 2021 in Case R 1383/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it refuses to allow the application for the revocation of EU trade mark STIWELL No 4 072 542 for the goods ‘neuromuscular stimulation apparatus’ in Class 10, and in so far as it refuses to fix as the starting point for the revocation date for all the goods the day of the fifth anniversary of the publication of the registration of that mark in the European Union Trade Marks Bulletin (21 February 2011);

— order EUIPO and the company Med-El to pay the costs in connection with the present action.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and an insufficient statement of reasons for its decision in that the Board of Appeal incorrectly analysed the concept of genuine use of the mark by not conducting a global assessment taking account of all the factors and by reference to all the facts;

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and an insufficient statement of reasons for its decision in that the Board of Appeal incorrectly analysed the concept of genuine use of the mark by assessing the specificity of the goods in the light of the activity of the proprietor of the mark and not in the light of the description of the goods;

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and an insufficient statement of reasons for its decision in that the Board of Appeal incorrectly analysed the concept of genuine use of the mark by adopting contradictory reasoning on the alleged specificity of those goods;
Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Collard v Parliament and ID

(Case T-53/22)

(2022/C 158/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gilbert Collard (Vauvert, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament and the political group Identity and Democracy (ID)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, first, the provisional suspensory decision of 22 January 2022 and, second, the expulsion decision of 25 January 2022;

— order the immediate suspension of both decisions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action seeking the annulment, first, of the decision of 22 January 2022 of the bureau of the political group Identity and Democracy (ID) suspending him from the group for a period of two months and, second, of the decision of 25 January 2022 of the political group Identity and Democracy (ID) expelling him from that group, the applicant complains that, as to form, those decisions do not comply with the basic disciplinary process and, as to substance, they have no valid basis.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 March 2022 — HCP v EUIPO — Timm Health Care (PYLOMED)

(Case T-138/22)

(2022/C 198/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: HCP GmbH (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: H. Suhren, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Timm Health Care BV (Borculo, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark PYLOMED — Application for registration No 18 132 059

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2022 in Case R 814/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 April 2022 — FA World Entertainment v EUIPO (FUCKING AWESOME)

(Case T-178/22)

(2022/C 207/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FA World Entertainment Inc. (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: M. Breuer, I. Dimitrov and C. Tenbrock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark FUCKING AWESOME — Application for registration No 1 564 573

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2022 in Case R 1131/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as it dismissed the action before the Board of Appeal, i.e. insofar as the Board of Appeal assumed a violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 11 March 2022 — Deckers Outdoor v EUIPO — Chunxian (TULEUGG)

(Case T-135/22)

(2022/C 198/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Deckers Outdoor Corp. (Goleta, California, United States) (represented by: A. Improda and C. Brega, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guo Chunxian (Mengzhou, China)

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: Application for European Union word mark TULEUGG — Application for registration No 18 156 704

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 December 2021 in Case R 412/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul and overturn the contested decision;

— as a consequence, reject the application for registration no. 18 156 704 for the trademark TULEUGG;

— order EUIPO and/or Mr Chunxian to pay the legal fees related to the present proceedings, as well as the ones related to the previous proceedings held before the Opposition Division and the Fifth Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

adopt, under Articles 88 and 89 of the Rules of Procedure, a measure of organisation of procedure seeking to have the ECB communicate the decisions concerning irrevocable payment commitments taken in respect of other banking institutions for 2021, particularly those relating to the other French banking institutions.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 March 2022 — Gönenç v EUIPO — Solar (termorad ‘ALUMINIUM PANEL RADIATOR’)

(Case T-172/22)

(2022/C 207/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Salim Selahaddin Gönenç (Konya, Turkey) (represented by: V. Martín Santos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Solar A/S (Vejen, Denmark)

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 figurative mark termorad ‘ALUMINIUM PANEL RADIATOR’ — Application for registration No 18 027 358

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2022 in Case R 770/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision so that the European Union trade mark No 18 027 358 is granted in its entirety;

— order the intervener and/or the EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in connection with this appeal and all procedural costs generated by EUIPO decisions.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 April 2022 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles)

(Case T-218/22)

(2022/C 237/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Roxtec AB (Karlskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wallmax Srl (Milano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles) — European Union trade mark No 7 376 023

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2022 in Case R 1093/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO for reconsideration; or

— alter the contested decision by removing the last sentence of paragraph 31 from the decision; and

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in these proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 April 2022 — TA Towers v EUIPO — Wobben Properties (Building materials)

(Case T-201/22)

(2022/C 222/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: TA Towers ApS (Odense, Denmark) (represented by: L. Andersen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wobben Properties GmbH (Aurich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design No 6 352 332-0002 (Building materials)

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2022 in Case R 2491/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 20 November 2020 in Case ICD 108 310;

— order EUIPO and the invalidity applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
1.

First plea in law, alleging misapplication by the European Commission and the Research Executive Agency of the provisions of the Grant Agreement to which the applicant and that agency are parties. — The applicant claims, in that regard, that the confirmation letter and the debit note are based on the outcome of an audit by the European Commission which unlawfully excluded bonuses given to employees on the basis of general objectives from the Eligible Costs within the meaning of the Grant Agreement to which the applicant was a party, for the purposes of benefitting from the subsidies set out therein.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 April 2022 — Cherusci v EUIPO — LexDellmeier (RIALTO)

(Case T-239/22)

(2022/C 237/95)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cherusci Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Donath, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LexDellmeier Intellectual Property Law Firm (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark RIALTO — EU trade mark No 11 706 546

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2022 in Case R 695/2021-2

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 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 May 2022 — mBank v EUIPO — European Merchant Bank (EMBANK European Merchant Bank)

(Case T-261/22)

(2022/C 257/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: mBank S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and M. Stępkowski, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Merchant Bank UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania)

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 EMBANK European Merchant Bank — European Union trade mark No 18 048 966

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2022 in Case R 1845/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision and uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment. — The facts accepted by the Council are inaccurate. The applicant is a successful businessman and is not in any way involved in the matters cited by the Council. — They are also too old to justify the reason for inclusion on the list, formulated in the present tense, on which the Council relies. — The evidence submitted by the Council is based solely on unreliable sources which did not verify their statements. They also contradict each other and do not correspond to the reality of the facts. Moreover, they are too old to be of any relevance.
—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/356 of 2 March 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), and Council Regulation (EU) 2022/355 of 2 March 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (2), in their entirety insofar as they affect the applicant; and
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural rules applicable to the implementation of the reclassification exercise as provided for by Article 5 of the general implementing provisions regarding Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (the ‘GIP’).
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and of Article 41 (2) (c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as breach of the right to effective judicial protection and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 May 2022 — Yayla Türk v EUIPO — Marmara Import-Export (Sütat)

(Case T-315/22)

(2022/C 276/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Yayla Türk Lebensmittelvertrieb GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marmara Import-Export GmbH (Ratingen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Sütat’ — EU trade mark No 5 414 561

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2022 in Case R 1184/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject Marmara Import-Export GmbH’s application of 17 June 2020 for a declaration of invalidity in respect of EU trade mark No 44 583 C; in the alternative: refer the case back to EUIPO for a further hearing and decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-278/22)

(2022/C 284/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogen Netherlands BV (Badhoevedorp, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 13 May 2022 C(2022) 3254 (final) granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) for ‘Dimethyl fumarate Neuraxpharm — dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 failure to observe the system of Directive 2001/83/EC (2) in relation to the rules on regulatory data protection, including Article 6(1) of that Directive, and the obligations of generic applicants under Article 10(1) of that Directive.

2. Second plea in law, alleging failure to recognize the consequences of the Opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of 11 November 2021 for the question whether the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Fumaderm was capable of commencing a global marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Tecfidera in accordance with Article 6(1), second subparagraph, of Directive 2001/83/EC.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004, L 136, p. 1).

(2) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001, L 311, p. 67).
—

annul the decision of the Defendant dated 23/07/2021 establishing an addendum of the Applicant’s contract and whereby his place of assignment was modified from Washington to Brussels as of 01/09/2021 and, in as far as necessary, annul the decision of the Defendant, dated 22/02/2022, rejecting the Applicant’s complaint filed on 20/10/2021, under Article 90(2) of the EU Staff Regulations;
1.

First plea in law, alleging error of law and the irregularity of the contested promotion procedure 2021: the violation of GIP 45 Decision C (2013) 8968 laying down general provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; the violation of Article 45(1) Staff Regulations in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the absence of actual comparison of the merits.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, breached Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (2) (‘basic Regulation’), and violated the applicant’s rights of defence when analysing the price effect of imports from Korea.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 June 2022 — Cassa Centrale v EUIPO — Bankia (BANQUÌ)

(Case T-368/22)

(2022/C 303/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cassa Centrale Banca — Credito Cooperativo Italiano SpA (Trento, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer, G. Locurto and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

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 BANQUÌ — Application for registration No 17 889 900

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2022 in Case R 1318/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision declaring the signs dissimilar and admitting the opposed application to registration;

— order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 July 2022 — adp Merkur v EUIPO — psmtec (SEVEN 7)

(Case T-408/22)

(2022/C 318/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: adp Merkur GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: psmtec GmbH (Illertissen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark SEVEN SEVEN 7 — Application No 18 123 915

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2022 in Case R 1498/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the opposition in its entirety;

— refuse the EU trade mark application No 18 123 915 for ‘SEVEN SEVEN 7’ in respect of all of the contested goods in Class 9, namely ‘Software for games on video devices; Game software; Electronic game software; Software’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law