ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/44

Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Picard v Commission

(Case T-769/16)

(2017/C 014/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maxime Picard (Hettange-Grande, France) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision setting, in advance, certain elements of the applicant’s pension rights or the failure to adopt such a decision required by the Staff Regulations as a result of the message sent on 4 January 2016 to the applicant by a case handler in Section 001 ‘Pensions’ of Unit 4 of the PMO informing him, in response to his query of the same date, that his pension rights had changed following his re-employment in Function Group II at 1 June 2014, his pensionable age having become 66 years old and the accrual rate of his pension rights having become is 1,8 % from 1 June 2014;

— Annul if necessary the decision of 26 July 2016 of the Director of Directorate E of the Human Resources Directorate General of the Commission, inasmuch as it rejects the applicant’s claim of 1 April 2016 against the decision or lack of decision resulting from the message of 4 January 2016 as inadmissible in the absence of a measure adversely affecting him and, in the alternative, as unfounded;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging an error of law and infringement of the second and fifth paragraphs of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations of Officials (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of the second paragraph of Article 21 and the second subparagraph of Article 22(1) of Annex XIII thereto, applicable by virtue of Article 109 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS) which vitiate the message of 4 January 2016, in that the date of entry into service taken into consideration for the application of those provisions of the regulation was 1 June 2014, the date on which the applicant entered Function Group II (‘FG II’) pursuant to Article 87(4) of the CEOS, whereas that date should have been 1 July 2008, the date on which he initially entered the Commission’s service as a member of the contractual staff in Function Group I.

That plea in law is divided into two parts:

— First part, alleging that Section 1 of Unit 4 of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (‘PMO’) and the Director of Directorate E of the Human Resources Directorate General of the Commission (DGHR) was incorrect to take the view, on the ground that the contract of 19 May 2014 by which the applicant entered FG II was new and had given rise to a fresh recruitment, that the second subparagraph of Article 22(1) and the second paragraph of Article 21 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations did not apply to him, so that paragraphs 5 and 2 of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations did apply to him, however, although the date of entry into service referred to in Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII is the date of first recruitment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/51

Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Kiosked Oy v EUIPO — VRT, NV van Publiek Recht (k)

(Case T-824/16)

(2017/C 022/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kiosked Oy Ab (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: VRT, NV van Publiek Recht (Brussels, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark in black and white containing the word element ‘K’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 112 969

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2016 in Case R 279/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) of 21 September 2016, in case No. R0279/2016-4 to accept the opposition by VRT, NV van publiek recht and reject the registration of International registration designating European No W01112969 K (fig.) (hereinafter the ‘K LOGO’) for the following services in classes 35 ‘Advertising, business management, business administration, office functions’ and 42 ‘Design and development of computer software’ and allows the K LOGO to proceed for registration for the above said services;

— order the Opponent to bear all the Appellant’s costs of the opposition proceedings, including the costs of legal representation, in accordance with the cost specification to be submitted by the Appellant within the deadline referred to in Article 85 of EUTMR, and should such specification fail to be submitted, in accordance with the relevant legislation.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/46

Action brought on 16 September 2016 — LG Electronics/EUIPO (Dual Edge)

(Case T-804/16)

(2017/C 022/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Dual Edge’ – Application for registration No 14 463 178

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2016 in Case R 832/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/51

Action brought on 22 November 2016 — Netflix International and Netflix v Commission

(Case T-818/16)

(2017/C 030/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Netflix International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Netflix, Inc. (Los Gatos, California, United States) (represented by: C. Alberdingk Thijm, S. van Schaik and S. van Velze, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 1 September 2016 declaring an amendment to the German act on measures for the promotion of German cinema in its seventh version compatible with the internal market (1); and

— order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

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 a violation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (2). — The Commission violated Article 13 (1) AVMSD in deciding that the German measure is compatible with this article interpreted in light of the proposed amendment. — The Commission violated Articles 2 (1), 2 (2) and 3 AVMSD in deciding that the German measure does not impinge the Country of Origin Principle.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 110 TFEU. — The Commission violated Article 110 TFEU in finding that the German measure is not discriminatory to on-demand audiovisual media service providers (‘VOD providers’) established outside Germany but targeting German audiences.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 56 TFEU. — The Commission violated Article 56 TFEU in failing to assess whether the German measure infringes the freedom to provide services, which it does.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 49 TFEU. — The Commission violated Article 49 TFEU in failing to assess whether the German measure infringes the freedom of establishment, which it does.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFEU. — The Commission violated Article 107 TFEU in finding that the German measure is a form of State Aid that can be justified by a cultural aim and is compatible with the Internal Market.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging a violation of essential procedural requirements. — The Commission violated essential procedural requirements in failing to meet the standards of motivation as laid down in Article 296(2) TFEU and of the right to good administration as set out in Article 41 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘EUCFR’).

(1) Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2042 of 1 September 2016 on the aid scheme SA.38418 — 2014/C (ex 2014/N) which Germany is planning to implement for the funding of film production and distribution (notified under document C(2016) 5551) (OJ 2016, L 314, p. 63).

(2) Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (‘AVMSD’) (OJ 2010, L 95, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/41

Action brought on 11 November 2016 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (Boxes)

(Case T-793/16)

(2017/C 022/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Şehitkamil Gaziantep, Turkey) (represented by: T. Tsenova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elka Zaharieva (Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

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 ‘Boxes’ — Community design No 002 343 244-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2016 in Case R 1143/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare invalid RCD No. 002343244-0002 ‘Bobo Cornet’; and

— order EUIPO and Elka Zaharieva to bear the costs of Solen in relation to the proceedings before the General Court and in relation to the administrative phase of the proceedings, in particular the invalidity and appeal proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the effective judicial protection principle, breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and plea of illegality and inapplicability under Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union related to the illegality and inapplicability of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/46

Action brought on 6 December 2016 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go)

(Case T-860/16)

(2017/C 038/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wirecard AG (Aschheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Bayer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘mycard2go’– Application for registration No 14 303 465

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2016 in Case R 281/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and refer the case to the defendant to take further steps in the registration proceedings for EU trade mark 014303465;

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

Pleas in law
First plea in law: infringement of the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable period, infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of a fair trial, and infringement of the obligations regarding information and consultation

The applicant submits that, by processing his claim in a slow manner, the defendant infringed all of the principles governing the proper conduct of an administrative procedure. The applicant was also not given the opportunity to set out his views orally before the measure adversely affecting him was adopted.
—

annul the measures of the Commission through the merger control unit of the Directorate General for competition in the course of the implementation of the third requirement (‘non-MNO remedy’) of Decision M.7018, in particular its view expressed in the emails of 24 October 2016 and of 29 October 2016 that the non-MNO remedy is limited to pure service providers, excluding MVNOs (mobile virtual network operators) such as the applicant;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/39

Action brought on 20 December 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — Senator (TRINOMIC)

(Case T-896/16)

(2017/C 053/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Senator GmbH & Co. KGaA (Groß-Bieberau, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TRINOMIC’ — Application No 12 697 074

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2016 in Case R 70/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the material and non-material damage suffered as a result of unlawful non-renewal decision on the one side and unlawful execution of the Judgment in case T-658/13 P (1), on the other side: EUR 63 246 for loss of earnings; EUR 26 630 to compensate the applicant for loss of pension rights for 19 months, or, such capital sum as the Court may fix ex aequo et bono; EUR 1 200 to reimburse legal costs paid by the applicant in pre-litigation phase, starting with the date of the draft decision of 29 January 2016 until the date of the defendant’s decision of 21 April 2016; EUR 60 000 for loss of chance to be awarded an indefinite contract, or, such sum as the Court may fix ex aequo et bono; EUR 50 000 for the non-material damage caused to the applicant as a result of alleged errors, irregularities and harm made by the defendant during the procedure for execution of the Judgment in case T-658/13P;
—

annul the defendant’s decision of 17 July 2015 on the rejection of the applicant’s proposal in response to the call for proposals in the context of the Connecting Europe Facility and on the basis of the Multi-annual Work Programme adopted in 2014;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/34

Action brought on 22 December 2016 — RRTec v EUIPO — Mobotec (RROFA)

(Case T-912/16)

(2017/C 063/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: RRTec sp. z o.o. (Gliwice, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mobotec AB (Gothenburg, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘RROFA’ — Application for registration No 12 699 534

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 2392/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/39

Action brought on 5 January 2017 — Golden Balls v EUIPO — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS)

(Case T-8/17)

(2017/C 063/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, M. Hawkins, Solicitor and T. Dolde, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intra-Presse (Boulogne Billancourt, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GOLDEN BALLS’ — Application for registration No 6 036 503

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2016 in Case R 1962/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including his right to protection of property, reputation and business. The impact of the Contested Measures on the applicant is far-reaching, both as regards to his property, and to his reputation worldwide. The Council has failed to demonstrate that the freezing of the applicant’s assets and economic resources is related to, or justified by, any legitimate aim, still less that it is proportionate to such an aim.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/30

Action brought on 19 January 2017 — Habermaaß v EUIPO — Here Global (h)

(Case T-40/17)

(2017/C 086/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Habermaaß GmbH AG (Bad Rodach, Germany) (represented by: U. Blumenröder, H. Gauß and E. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Here Global BV (Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘h’ — Application for registration No 12 833 141

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 October 2016 in Case R 53/2016-2

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 Articles 8(1)(b) and 41 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of the legal principles to be considered when applying and interpreting the Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/38

Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Kwang Yang Motor v EUIPO — Schmidt (CK1)

(Case T-45/17)

(2017/C 078/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd (Kaohsiung, Taiwan) (represented by: A. González Hähnlein and A. Kleinheyer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Udo Schmidt (Reken, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘CK1’ — Application for registration No 12 514 956

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2016 in Case R 2193/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/59

Action brought on 31 January 2017 — TenneT Holding v. EUIPO — Ngrid Intellectual Property (NorthSeaGrid)

(Case T-70/17)

(2017/C 104/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: TenneT Holding BV (Arnhem, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Limperg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘NorthSeaGrid’ — Application for registration No 12 223 517

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 in Case R 1607/2015-5

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 No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/47

Action brought on 17 February 2017 — JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission

(Case T-106/17)

(2017/C 112/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: JPMorgan Chase & Co. (New York, New York, United States), JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (Columbus, Ohio, United States), J.P. Morgan Services LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Rose, QC, J. Boyd, M. Lester, D. Piccinin and D. Heaton, Barristers, and B. Tormey, N. French, N. Frey and D. Das, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission decision C(2016) 8530 final, in case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives — (the ‘Decision’), of 7 December 2016, in so far as it applies to the applicants;

— in the alternative, reduce the penalty imposed on the applicants;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to show that the applicants’ conduct pursued the object of manipulating EURIBOR tenors or EONIA (benchmark interest rates); the evidence shows that the applicants did not pursue any anti-competitive object within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (‘Article 101’).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that, further or alternatively, the Commission erred in law in finding that the object of the alleged manipulation of EURIBOR tenors or EONIA is an object of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within the meaning of Article 101.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the challenged decision does not find, and the Commission cannot now argue or establish, any other anti-competitive object against the applicants than manipulating EURIBOR tenors or EONIA.

4. Fourth plea in law alleging that, in the alternative, the Commission has failed to establish that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement. In particular, the conduct found by the Commission to infringe Article 101 did not pursue a single aim; alternatively the applicants were not aware of the infringing conduct of the other parties and could not reasonably have foreseen it; and alternatively the applicants did not intend to contribute by their conduct to a common plan with an anti-competitive object.

5. Fifth plea in law alleging that the Commission has acted contrary to the fundamental principles of EU law, good administration, the presumption of innocence, and the applicants’ rights of defence, by having pre-judged the case against them in the way it applied the ‘hybrid’ settlement process, and by expressions of pre-judgment by Commissioner Almunia.