ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/51

Action brought on 19 January 2018 — La Marchesiana v EUIPO — Marchesi Angelo (MARCHESI)

(Case T-35/18)

(2018/C 142/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: La Marchesiana Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi, F. Santonocito and A. Sobol, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marchesi Angelo Srl (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark MARCHESI consisting of seven brush strokes coloured orange, blue, yellow, red, green, black and violet — European Union trade mark No 4 187 159

Procedure before EUIPO: Application for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2017 in joined Cases R 1753/2016-4 and R 1802/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the contested decision and dismiss in its entirety Angelo Marchesi’s request for cancellation of EU trade mark No 4 187 159 for non-use;

— find, by way of variation of the contested decision, that EU trade mark No 4 187 159 was put to genuine use within the European Union during the reference period, pursuant to Article 58(1) EUTMR, in relation to goods/services in Classes 8 (Hand tools and implements, in particular kitchen utensils), 16 (Paper, cardboard, printed matter, books, magazines, artists’ materials, stationery, teaching material), 21 (Household or kitchen utensils and containers, cooking pots, plates, glasses, glassware, porcelain and earthenware), 29 (Foodstuffs of animal origin, preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, fruit sauces; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats), 30 (Coffee and artificial coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, flour, bread, pasta, pastries, ices, additives for improving the flavour of the foods), 33 (Alcoholic beverages), as well as goods/services in Classes 30 (Coffee), 41 (Educational and training activities, training courses) and 43 (Providing of food and drink, services provided by businesses which undertake to obtain food and drink ready for consumption provided by bars, restaurants, self-service restaurants, canteens);

— in the alternative and by way of partial variation of the contested decision, dismiss the opponent’s application for cancellation of EU trade mark No 4 187 159 for non-use in relation to goods and services in Classes 30 (Coffee), 41 (Educational and training activities, training courses) and 43 (Providing of food and drink, services provided by businesses which undertake to obtain food and drink ready for consumption provided by bars, restaurants, self-service restaurants, canteens);

— order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of these proceedings and both the preceding procedural stages.

Pleas in law
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s decision not to approve the 2014 Dubai Icederby event falls outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU because this decision pursued a legitimate objective in line with the Applicant’s Code of Ethics which prohibits all forms of support for betting.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/54

Action brought on 5 March 2018 — Sona Nutrition v EUIPO — Solgar Holdings (SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA)

(Case T-153/18)

(2018/C 152/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sona Nutrition Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

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: EU figurative mark in colours red, light brown, beige, dark brown and golden brown, SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA — Application for registration No 13 781 299

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2017 in Case R 1321/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Solgar Holdings, Inc., if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of the decision of the Management Board of EASO of 18 January 2016 implementing Articles 43 and 44 of the Staff Regulations for temporary staff.
—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 3 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in that the ECB made an interpretation contrary to the legislative intent of the EU legislation authorising credit institutions to use irrevocable payment commitments in order to fulfil part of their obligations vis-à-vis the national resolution funds, the Single Resolution Fund and the national deposit guarantee schemes, thus rendering the relevant provisions ineffective. The ECB, it is claimed, also based its decision on a misreading of the EU and national legal transposition framework applicable to irrevocable payment commitments.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/40

Action brought on 12 March 2018 — Papaconstantinou and Others v Council and Others

(Case T-188/18)

(2018/C 166/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Adonis Papaconstantinou (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 722 others (represented by: A. Markides, M. Ioannides, C. Velaris and C. Velaris, lawyers, A. Robertson, QC, and G. Rothschild, Barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup (represented by the Council of the European Union) and European Union (represented by the European Commission)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court, as compensation for damage suffered as a result of Eurogroup decisions concerning the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd (‘Laiki Bank’), the bail-in of Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited (‘Bank of Cyprus’) and the sale of assets and business of the said banks in Greece, and/or as a result of the provision of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Laiki Bank with the consent of the European Central Bank and the subsequent transfer at the direction of the European Central Bank of the relevant liability to Bank of Cyprus;

or in the alternative:

— declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants;

and in any event:

— order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-147/18, APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others.
—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 1 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;
—

recognise that the SGEI scheme applies to the Italian healthcare system, and that the principles set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Altmark case of 2003 with regard to Articles 106 TFEU and 107 TFEU for the purposes of the application of State aid are therefore applicable. As a result, the Court should examine the Lazio Region’s actions regarding the remuneration of public facilities, which should have complied with the principles established by the abovementioned rules and therefore should have limited the payments to the healthcare facilities under public ownership to the forecast reimbursement of costs according to the criteria set out in the Altmark judgment relating to the so-called average establishment, and declare that excessive financing constitutes overcompensation;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/47

Action brought on 27 March 2018 — Brita v EUIPO (Shape of tap for preparing and dispensing beverages)

(Case T-213/18)

(2018/C 166/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Brita GmbH (Taunusstein, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark in black and white (Shape of tap for preparing and dispensing beverages) — Application for registration No 16 053 068

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2018 in Case R 1864/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order to accept the European Union Trademark Application no. 16 053 068 in relation to all the goods and services applied for in classes 7, 11, 21, 37 and 40;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and the fees and costs of BRITA GmbH.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council did not prove the existence of the conditions for his listing and committed a manifest error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that, in his role as attorney general and previous roles as ombudsman and president of the Republican Moral Council, the applicant has undermined democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/41

Action brought on 04 April 2018 — Biolatte v EUIPO (Biolatte)

(Case T-229/18)

(2018/C 190/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biolatte Oy (Turku, Finland) (represented by: J. Ikonen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Biolatte’ — Application for registration No 15 759 319

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2018 in Case R 351/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision in its entirety;

— order that the word mark registration should be granted in accordance with Biolatte Oy’s application filed on 17 August 2016 (as amended on 28 October 2016).

Plea in law
Case T-257/18: Action brought on 24 Avril 2018 — Iberpotash v Commission

Action brought on 24 Avril 2018 — Iberpotash v Commission

(Case T-257/18)

Parties

Applicant: Iberpotash, SA (Suria, Spain) (represented by: N. Niejahr and B. Hoorelbeke. lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision (EU) 2018/118 of 31 August 2017 on State aid SA.35818 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2012/CP) implemented by Spain for Iberpotash (notified under document C(2017) 5877); ( 1 )

— in the alternative: — annul the contested decision to the extent that it finds Measure 1 to contain State aid and orders its recovery with interest from the applicant; and/or — annul the contested decision insofar as it determines the amount of unlawful but compatible aid received by the applicant contained in Measure 4 to amount to EUR 3902461,30, and the illegal aid to be recovered with interest from the applicant to amount to EUR 3958109,70;

— order the Commission to bear its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by finding that Measure 1 involves a transfer of State resources.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by finding that Measure 1 confers a selective economic advantage on the applicant. In the alternative, it is alleged that the Commission failed to correctly determine the amount of unlawful and incompatible State aid, if any, arising from Measure 1, in violation of Article 16(1) of the Procedural Regulation. ( 2 )

3. Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the Commission violated Article 16(1) of the Procedural Regulation regarding Measure 1 by ordering recovery because such recovery violates the applicant’s legitimate expectations and/or the principle of legal certainty.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by finding that Measure 4 confers a selective economic advantage on the applicant.

5. Fifth plea in law alleging, in the alternative, that the Commission violated Article 16(1) of the Procedural Regulation by failing to correctly determine the amount of unlawful and incompatible aid, if any, arising from Measure 4.

( 1 ) OJ 2018 L 28, p. 25.

( 2 ) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
First plea in law, based on performance of the contract in good faith and the prohibition on the abusive application of contractual terms:

the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the principle of good faith, in so far as the audit inspection provided for was carried out unlawfully by a third party who is not related to the staff of the contractor appointed by the defendant, nor to its expressly approved subcontractors, in respect of whom, during the inspection, issues of impartiality were raised, and acted wrongfully.
1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence on the part of the Commission and infringement of essential procedural requirements in so far as the Commission exceeded its powers under the terms of the Association Agreement between Tunisia and the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission should have submitted the question to the Association Council so the latter could resolve the dispute or, alternatively, allow the parties to take the necessary measures to protect their interests.
Case T-287/18: Action brought on 4 May 2018 — M. I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (Nature’s Variety Instinct)

Action brought on 4 May 2018 — M. I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (Nature’s Variety Instinct)

(Case T-287/18)

Parties

Applicant: M. I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, United States) (represented by: M. Montañá Mora, S. Sebe Marin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Nature’s Variety Instinct — Application for registration No 14 290 647

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2018 in Case R 1659/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and –if applicable- the Opponent to jointly and severally pay all the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law
Case T-312/18: Action brought on 14 May 2018 — Dentsply De Trey v EUIPO — IDS (AQUAPRINT)

Action brought on 14 May 2018 — Dentsply De Trey v EUIPO — IDS (AQUAPRINT)

(Case T-312/18)

Parties

Applicant: Dentsply De Trey GmbH (Konstanz, Germany) (represented by: S. Clark, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IDS SpA (Savona, Italy)

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: EU word mark AQUAPRINT — Application for registration No 12 272 407

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2018 in Case R 1438/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision except in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the goods are identical/similar and that the relevant public is specialized in the dental field;

— order, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the intervener, if any, to pay the costs incurred by Dentsply in the present proceedings;

— alter the decision also with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO that the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred by the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence and of Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, and, secondly, infringement of the principle of equality of arms during the hearing of the applicant, on the basis of Article 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.
annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/468 of 21 March 2018 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1420 (OJ 2018 L 79, p. 7);

in so far as those measures apply to Hamas, including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem;
Case T-292/18: Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Portugal v Commission

Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-292/18)

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estevão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 955 of 27 February 2018, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes from EU financing expenditure declared by Portugal in the sum of EUR 1052101,05 on the ground that it comes under ‘Debts wrongly reported in the Annex III tables, having escaped the application of the 50/50 rule’;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on an infringement of Articles 32 and 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 ( 1 ) and of Article 54 of Regulation (EC) No 1306/2013. ( 2 )

( 1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

( 2 ) Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).
Case T-373/18: Action brought on 19 June 2018 — ABB v EUIPO (FLEXLOADER)

Action brought on 19 June 2018 — ABB v EUIPO (FLEXLOADER)

(Case T-373/18)

Parties

Applicant: ABB AB (Västerås, Sweden) (represented by: M. Hartmann and S. Fröhlich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark FLEXLOADER — Application for registration No 17 099 474

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2018 in Case R 93/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal uniformity, in so far as France is in a situation that is strictly similar to that of Slovakia, in relation to which the General Court held that ‘in view of the profit pursued by health insurance companies and the existence of intense competition as to quality and the services offered, the activity of providing compulsory health insurance in Slovakia is economic in nature’ (judgment of 5 February 2018, Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa v Commission, T-216/15, not published, EU:T:2018:64, paragraph 68). According to the applicant, the situation therefore cannot be held to be otherwise in relation to France.
Case T-387/18: Action brought on 25 June 2018 — Delta-Sport v EUIPO — Delta Enterprise (DELTA SPORT)

Action brought on 25 June 2018 — Delta-Sport v EUIPO — Delta Enterprise (DELTA SPORT)

(Case T-387/18)

Parties

Applicant: Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delta Enterprise Corp. (New York, New York, 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 figurative mark DELTA SPORT — Application for registration No 14 327 911

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 April 2018 in Case R 1894/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal;

— take any other measures that it may consider appropriate.

Plea in law