ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 February 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — MKR Design (Panthé)

(Case T-117/20)

(2020/C 129/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MKR Design Srl (Milan, 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: Application for European Union figurative mark Panthé — Application for registration No 16 366 461

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 December 2019 in Case R 378/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 February 2020 — Klose v EUIPO (Representation of three coloured segments in a rectangle)

(Case T-81/20)

(2020/C 114/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Anne-Marie Klose (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: I. Seher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of three coloured segments in a rectangle) — Application for registration No 18 019 599

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2019 in Case R 1955/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Kahimbi Kasagwe v Council

(Case T-108/20)

(2020/C 129/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Delphin Kahimbi Kasagwe (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 6 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 6 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and breached Article 3 of the basic Regulation in finding, on the one hand, that payments by the Oil Palm Plantation Fund (‘OPPF’) are to be qualified as grants instead of payments for purchases of biodiesel and, on the other hand, that the OPPF payments confer a benefit to biodiesel producers, since the Commission (i) relied on a manifestly erroneous counterfactual and (ii) failed to find that the benefit, if any, was passed through to biodiesel blenders.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 February 2020 — Vulkano Research and Development v EUIPO — Ega (EGA Master)

(Case T-135/20)

(2020/C 161/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vulkano Research and Development, SL (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: V. Wellens and C. Schellekens, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ega sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Starogard Gdański, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark EGA Master — European Union trade mark No 5 835 558

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 in Case R 1038/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision with the exception to the finding that the Contested EUTM must be upheld for the products ‘Common metals and their alloys’ in Class 6;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(4) in conjunction with Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 13 (3) in conjunction with Articles 5 (10) and 5 (11) 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 (‘basic Regulation’), along with Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 12.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, the principle of non-discrimination and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations by not including the Applicant in the exhaustive list of subject exporters in the regulation initiating the anti-circumvention investigation and then subsequently expanding the scope of the investigation to also cover the Applicant.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 April 2020 — Davide Groppi v EUIPO — Viabizzuno (Lamps)

(Case T-187/20)

(2020/C 191/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Davide Groppi Srl (Piacenza, Italy) (represented by: F. Boscariol de Roberto, D. Capra and V. Malerba, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Viabizzuno Srl (Bentivoglio, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the Court

Design at issue: Community design No 2 503 680-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2020 in Case R 126/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and respondent to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
Action brought on 28 February 2020 — IV v Commission

(Case T-145/20)

(2020/C 201/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IV (represented by: J. Lemmer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the European Commission and the Centre Polyvalent de l’Enfance Interinstitutionnel, jointly and severally to communicate to (X) the attendance records of his child (Y) for the years 2019 and 2020 in their possession, subject to a non-committal penalty payment of EUR 500 (five hundred euros) for each day of delay from the date of delivery of the decision to be adopted;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 1 500 by way of irrecoverable costs which the applicant had to incur in order to enforce his rights, as well as the costs and expenses of the present proceedings.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward a single plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendant of Article 42 ‘Right of access to documents’ of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides that ‘Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, whatever their medium’.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 March 2020 — Creaton South-East Europe v EUIPO — Henkel (CREATHERM)

(Case T-168/20)

(2020/C 191/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Creaton South-East Europe Kft. (Lenti, Hungary) (represented by: J. Muyldermans and P. Maeyaert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, 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 word mark CREATHERM — Application for registration No 17 481 011

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2020 in Case R 1090/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 April 2020 — Eternit v EUIPO — Eternit Österreich (Panels)

(Case T-193/20)

(2020/C 201/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eternit (Kapelle-op-den-Bos, Belgium) (represented by: J. Muyldermans and P. Maeyaert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eternit Österreich GmbH (Vöcklabruck, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design No 2 538 140-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2020 in Case R 1661/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 April 2020 — Sociedade de Água de Monchique v EUIPO -Ventura Vendrell (chic ÁGUA ALCALINA 9,5 PH)

(Case T-195/20)

(2020/C 201/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Sociedade de Água de Monchique, SA (Caldas de Monchique, Portugal) (represented by: M. Osório de Castro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pere Ventura Vendrell (Sant Sadurni d’Anoia, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant in the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark chic ÁGUA ALCALINA 9,5 PH — Application for registration No 017 027 608

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2020 in Case R 2524/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision so that the registration of the requested mark is granted;

— order EUIPO to pay all the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 April 2020 — Square v EUIPO ($ Cash App)

(Case T-211/20)

(2020/C 209/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Square, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, K. Lüder and T. Dolde, 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 figurative mark $ Cash App — International registration designating the European Union No 1 410 839

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2020 in Case R 810/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Operations Department and the First Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 72(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;
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a lack of a test of proportionality of the removal of EU citizenship with respect to certain categories of British citizens. The applicants consider that the contested decision must be annulled, on the ground that it did not take into account the impossibility for several categories of British citizens to vote during the referendum of 23 June 2016 on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union: those who have exercised their freedom of movement within the Union and have been absent from the territory of the United Kingdom for more than 15 years, citizens of overseas countries and territories, the Channel Islands and British prisoners.
—

where necessary, as measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the present case, order the European Parliament to produce the opinions issued by the European Parliament’s Legal Service, which were delivered on 16 July 2018 and on 3 December 2018, without prejudice as to their exact date, but in any event before the adoption of the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 modifying the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2018/C 466/02, Official Journal 28 December 2018, C 466/8);
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 April 2020 — Aerospinning Master Franchising v EUIPO — Mad Dogg Athletics (SPINNING)

(Case T-246/20)

(2020/C 215/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Aerospinning Master Franchising s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Labalestra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. (Venice, California, United States)

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 ‘SPINNING’ — European Union trade mark No 175 117

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2020 in Case R 369/2019-4

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 58(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Unión Detallistas Españoles (unit)

(Case T-344/20)

(2020/C 247/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unión Detallistas Españoles S. Coop. Unide (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark ‘unit’ — Application for registration No 16 542 078

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 in Case R 2005/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal erred in law by failing to consider that the proof of use regarding sales, during the relevant period, in respect of the Spanish trade marks No 1795078 and No 2289074 — which required proof of use — is insufficient due to the lack or shortage of such proof and, consequently, by stating that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks on the part of consumers.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — EnergieVerbund Dresden v Commission

(Case T-317/20)

(2020/C 240/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: EnergieVerbund Dresden GmbH (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the defendant of 26 February 2019 declaring the concentration ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ compatible with the internal market (Case M.8871) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on three pleas in law, which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 May 2020 — 4B Company v EUIPO — Deenz (Pendants (jewellery))

(Case T-329/20)

(2020/C 247/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: 4B Company Srl (Montegiorgio, Italy) (represented by: G. Brogi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deenz Holding Ltd (Dubai, United Arab Emirates)

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 No 2 100-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2020 in Case R 2449/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division, granted the application to maintain Community design No 21 00-0001 in amended form and allowed the design in amended form to be included on the register and published in the Community Designs Bulletin, and, as a result, confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of 15 October 2018 in Case ICD 10 654;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 June 2020 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE)

(Case T-363/20)

(2020/C 255/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (Bielsko-Biała, Poland)

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 KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE — European Union trade mark No 15 371 255

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 April 2020 in Case R 1532/2019-1

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 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) 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 23 June 2020 — DK Company v EUIPO — Hunter Boot (DENIM HUNTER)

(Case T-387/20)

(2020/C 262/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DK Company A/S (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: S. Hansen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hunter Boot Ltd (Edinburgh, United Kingdom)

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 DENIM HUNTER — Application for registration No 14 649 891

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 April 2020 in Case R 849/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— reverse the contested decision in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs including cost incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal has erred in the assessment of the consequence of the (administrative) limitation of the goods in the applicant’s trademark application, and the impact of the figurative element in the applicant’s mark;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 May 2020 — Fashioneast and AM.VI. v EUIPO — Moschillo (RICH JOHN RICHMOND)

(Case T-297/20)

(2020/C 255/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Fashioneast Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), AM.VI. Srl (Naples, Italy) (represented by: A. Camusso and M. Baghetti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Moschillo Srl (Avellino, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Applicants before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark RICH JOHN RICHMOND — European Union trade mark No 3 815 149

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2020 in Case R 1381/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the Applicant be discharged from the payment of all the fees and costs of the appeal and cancellation proceedings;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the procedure.

Plea in law
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that there is a violation by the Commission of its obligation to act against the conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister, Mr. Andrej Babiš, under Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 319(3) TFEU, in conjunction with the Resolution of the European Parliament of 13 December 2018 (2) and Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council. All conditions for the Commission to act have been fulfilled, namely: (i) the existence of a conflict of interest of Mr. Andrej Babiš; (ii) the participation of Mr. Andrej Babiš in the acts preparatory to EU budget implementation; and (iii) the fact that the conflict of interest of Mr. Andrej Babiš constitutes an ‘other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union’ within the meaning of Article 325 (1) TFEU. The Commission has therefore been obliged to act, yet it failed to act, as it did not adopt deterrent measures to neutralise the conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister under its obligation set out in Article 319(3) and Article 325(1) TFEU and the second sentence of Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Instead, since 2 August 2018, members of the College of Commissioners, in particular its President, continued to meet and discuss with the Czech Prime Minister the 2021-2027 MFF, and the Commission continued to disburse direct agricultural payments, in violation of the conflict of interest prohibition, to companies of certain groups of which Andrej Babiš is a controlling person and beneficial owner.