ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 29 November 2021 — Peace United v EUIPO — 1906 Collins (bâoli)

(Case T-754/21)

(2022/C 51/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Peace United Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Artzimovitch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 1906 Collins LLC (Miami, Florida, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark bâoli — EU trade mark No 6 619 977

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2021 in Case R 275/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as, as a result of various errors of assessment in fact and in law and disregard of the duty of sound administration, the Board of Appeal found that the EU trade mark No 6 619 977 bâoli had not been put to genuine use during the period at issue in respect of the services claimed in Classes 41 and 43;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 63(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in so far as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the unfairness of the revocation action;
1.

First plea in law, alleging error of law and the irregularity of the contested procedure: the violation of Article 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular violation of the duty of care and the principle of sound administration contained in Article 41 of the Charter.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 December 2021 — Fieldpoint (Cyprus) v EUIPO (HYPERLIGHTOPTICS)

(Case T-800/21)

(2022/C 73/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fieldpoint (Cyprus) LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: P. Rath and S. Gebele, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark HYPERLIGHTOPTICS — Application for registration No 18 335 960

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2021 in Case R 1166/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare European Union trademark application No 18 335 960 ‘HYPERLIGHTOPTICS’ to be eligible for registration;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 8 December 2021 — Atesos medical and Others v Commission

(Case T-764/21)

(2022/C 95/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Atesos medical AG (Aarau, Switzerland) and 7 other applicants (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, B. Natens and I. Willemyns, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the unpublished defendant’s decision of an unknown date which falsely asserts the expiry of the designation of Schweizerische Vereinigung für Qualitäts — und Management Systeme (‘SQS’) as a conformity assessment body for medical devices under Directive No 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices, and that delists SQS from the European Commission’s New Approach Notified and Designated Organizations database with effect from 28 September 2021; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 296 TFUE and Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 13(2) TEU.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misused its powers.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 218(9) TFEU and Articles 8, 18, 19 and 21 of the ‘EU-Swiss MRA’ (1), the right to be heard as reflected in Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the right of defence and the general principle of fraus omnia corrumpit.

4. Forth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 120 of Regulation (EU) No 2017/745 (2) and Articles 1 (juncto 20) and 5 of the ‘EU-Swiss MRA’, as well as the general principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

(1) Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment — Final Act — Joint Declarations — Information relating to the entry into force of the seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation in the sectors free movement of persons, air and land transport, public procurement, scientific and technological cooperation, mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, and trade in agricultural products (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 369), as amended by Decision no 2/2017 of the Committee established under the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment of 22 December 2017 on the amendment of Chapter 2 on Personal protective equipment, Chapter 4 on medical devices, Chapter 5 on gas appliances and boilers and Chapter 19 on Cableway installations [2018/403] (OJ 2018 L 72, p. 24-41).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2017 L 117, p. 1-175).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 December 2021 — Team Beverage v EUIPO (TEAM BUSINESS IT DATEN — PROZESSE — SYSTEME)

(Case T-786/21)

(2022/C 73/71)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Team Beverage AG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, D. Mienert and J. Selbmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark TEAM BUSINESS IT DATEN — PROZESSE — SYSTEME in blue and grey — Application for registration No 17 660 655

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2021 in Case R 2185/2020-2

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 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3.13. of the tender specifications, infringement of the Decree of 21 February 2019 aimed at reinforcing the quality and accessibility of early childhood care in the French Community and of the Decree of 2 May 2019 of the Government of the French Community laying down the system of authorisation and subsidies for crèches, childcare services and independent (co-)carers of children and/or of the Decree of 22 November 2013 of the Flemish Government laying down the approval conditions and the quality policy for family and group care of babies and toddlers, infringement of general principles of law and, more specifically, of the principles of detailed and exhaustive examination and patere legem quam ipse fecisti, and a manifest error of assessment.
—

order EIB to pay the remuneration relating to the periods from 29 May 2020 until 8 January 2021, from 8 January 2021 until 8 April 2021, and from 8 April 2021 until 8 June 2021, together with default interest, the rate of which being the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank plus two percentage points;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 January 2022 — DDR Kultur v EUIPO — Groupe Canal+ (THE PLANET)

(Case T-47/22)

(2022/C 128/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DDR Kultur UG (haftungsbeschränkt) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Yeboah, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupe Canal+ (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France)

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 THE PLANET — Application for registration No 18 096 394

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2021 in Case R 2385/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the transfer of the applicant in the alleged interest of the service was carried out in breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, without taking into consideration either the interest of the member of staff or the interest of the service and without observance of the right to be heard and the need to state the reasons for the decision affecting the interests of the member of staff concerned.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 101 TFEU and provided insufficient reasons in finding that the Information Exchange Chats, seen in isolation or as part of an alleged single and continuous infringement comprising other alleged conduct for which CS is not held liable, had as their object the restriction and/or distortion of competition. In particular, — the Commission failed to discharge its burden of proof under Article 101 TFEU that the Information Exchange Chats restrict competition by object; — the Commission erred in law by concluding that a legitimate explanation for conduct and pro-competitive effects are irrelevant under Article 101(1) TFEU.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 January 2022 — Romedor Pharma v EUIPO — Perfect Care Distribution (PERFECT FARMA CERVIRON)

(Case T-36/22)

(2022/C 138/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romedor Pharma SRL (Focşani, Romania) (represented by: E. Dicu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Perfect Care Distribution (Bucharest, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark PERFECT FARMA CERVIRON — EU trade mark No 10 864 511

Procedure before EUIPO: proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2021 in Case R 522/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the action as formulated and reasoned;

— annul the contested decision and, consequently, uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of EU trade mark No 10 864 511.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Boshab v Council

(Case T-98/22)

(2022/C 148/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Évariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

— annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 8 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 6 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 6 in Annex I to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Kanyama v Council

(Case T-95/22)

(2022/C 148/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

— annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in Annex I to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 March 2022 — Simba Toys v EUIPO — Master Gift Import (BIMBA TOYS)

(Case T-129/22)

(2022/C 171/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: O. Ruhl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Master Gift Import, SLU (Ronda, Spain)

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 figurative mark BIMBA TOYS — Application for registration No 17 846 486

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2021 in Case R 629/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

replace that decision with another stating whether the applicant is allowed to participate in the procurement procedure and, should she not be allowed, the reasons for the rejection, by reference to the other candidates and the contract notice;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 March 2022 — Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret v EUIPO — Yadex International (pinar KURUYEMIŞ)

(Case T-147/22)

(2022/C 198/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret AŞ (Karatay/Konya, Turkey) (represented by: M. López Camba and A. Lyubomirova Geleva, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yadex International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

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 pinar KURUYEMIŞ — Application for registration No 18 160 742

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2022 in Case R 1148/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to the extent that it maintains the upholding of opposition B 3110022;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;

— order Yadex International GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;
1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons for the contested decisions, infringement of Article 31 of the EIB’s Rules of Procedure and Articles 6 and 11 of Protocol No 5 on the Statute of the EIB, and lack of a legal basis, and raising a plea of illegality, under Article 277 TFEU, in respect of point 2.1.1 of the administrative provisions.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 March 2022 — 1906 Collins v EUIPO — Peace United (bâoli BEACH)

(Case T-160/22)

(2022/C 207/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: 1906 Collins LLC (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: C. Mateu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peace United Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark bâoli BEACH — EU trade mark No 16 552 333

Proceedings before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2022 in Case R 223/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare EU trade mark No 16 552 333 bâoli BEACH invalid on the basis of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001;

— declare trade mark No 16 552 333 invalid as of the date of its filing;

— order Peace United to reimburse the fees and costs incurred by 1906 Collins in connection with the present proceedings, including the costs awarded by the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, in accordance with Article 134(1) and Article 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 March 2022 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — XTG (XTG)

(Case T-153/22)

(2022/C 198/86)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Machei and G. Orsoni, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: XTG S.A. (Wrocław, Poland)

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: European Union figurative mark XTG — Application for registration No 18 120 223

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2021 in Case R 1387/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Action brought on 31 March 2022 — Telefónica de España v Commission

(Case T-170/22)

(2022/C 207/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Telefónica de España, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz, lawyer, P. Stuart, Barrister-at-Law and J. Blanco Carol, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 21 January 2022 relating to the Call for Tenders DIGIT/A3/PR/2019/RP/010 — Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations (TESTA);

— grant any other relief that the Court considers appropriate in the circumstances;

— and, in any event, order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law, and committed errors of fact and assessment, by penalising the consortium (1) for failing to provide information that was never requested in the tender specifications, in breach of the principle of transparency.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law, and committed errors of fact and assessment, in failing to score the offer (2) in accordance with the tender specifications, in breach of the principles of transparency and legal certainty.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law, and committed errors of fact and assessment, in failing to set out clear, unambiguous award criteria, and failed to provide the information necessary to assess the scoring of the offer, in breach of the principles of transparency and certainty and the rights of defence.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law, and committed errors of fact and assessment, in failing to seek clarifications when possible and useful, in breach of the principles of good administration and procedural fairness.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the procurement procedure was vitiated by a series of breaches of fundamental principles of EU law.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law in failing to impose any measures to safeguard Member States’ rights under Article 346 TFEU not to disclose information contrary to the essential interests of their security, and breached the principle of equal treatment.

(1) The ‘consortium’, as defined in the application, is composed of Telefonica de España, the applicant, plus two other entities.

(2) By ‘the offer’ is meant the consortium’s tender offer.