ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/33

Action brought on 7 November 2017 — Wattiau v Parliament

(Case T-737/17)

(2018/C 032/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Francis Wattiau (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision to make him liable for the amount of EUR 843,01, included in the breakdown of expenses No 244 from the settlements office;

— Annul, where necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority of 2 August 2017;

— Order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raised an objection of illegality against the agreement concluded between the European Union and the Federation of Luxembourg Hospitals increasing by 15 % the medical expenses incurred by the members of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS) in Luxembourg. That objection of illegality is based on two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and Articles 12 and 14 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that there has been a failure to comply with the judgment cited above and infringement of the principle of sound administration including the obligation to treat cases fairly and impartially, infringement of the principle of presumption of innocence, and a breach of the rights of the defence, in so far as the decisions to reopen those disciplinary proceedings do not guarantee impartial and fair treatment of the applicant’s case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/39

Action brought on 8 December 2017 — De Masi and Varoufakis v ECB

(Case T-798/17)

(2018/C 042/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Fabio De Masi (Hamburg, Germany) and Yanis Varoufakis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: Professor A. Fischer-Lescano)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank, notified by letter of 16 October 2017, by which the applicants’ application for access to the European Central Bank document ‘Responses to questions concerning the interpretation of Article 14.4 of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB’ of 23 April 2015 was rejected;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of any intervening party, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law: Incorrect application of the second indent of Article 4(2) of Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3) (1) — The applicants claim that the publication of the legal opinion in question would not undermine the defendant’s legal advice and that there is an overriding public interest in its disclosure. Furthermore, there was a lack of consideration and a failure to state adequate reasons.

2. Second plea in law: Incorrect application of Article 4(3) of Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3) — Publication of the legal opinion in question would not undermine its internal use as part of deliberations and preliminary consultations within the European Central Bank, or for exchanges of views between the European Central Bank and national central banks.

(1) Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3) (OJ 2004 L 80, p. 42).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/41

Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Brown Street Holdings v EUIPO — Enesan (FIGHT LIFE)

(Case T-800/17)

(2018/C 042/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Brown Street Holdings Ltd (Auckland, New Zealand) (represented by: C. Hufnagel, M. Kleespies, A. Bender and J. Clayton-Chen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Enesan AG (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration No 1 112 642 designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘FIGHT LIFE’

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 in Case R 36/2017-2

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 the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/22

Action brought on 29 December 2017 — Sports Group Denmark v EUIPO — K&L (WHISTLER)

(Case T-836/17)

(2018/C 063/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sports Group Denmark A/S (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: E. Skovbo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: K&L GmbH & Co. Handels-KG (Weilheim, Germany)

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 ‘WHISTLER’ — Application for registration No 12 870 648

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 October 2017 in Case R 311/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— reject the opposition in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/42

Action brought on 22 December 2017 — TeamBank v EUIPO — Fio Systems (FYYO)

(Case T-826/17)

(2018/C 052/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: D. Terheggen and H. Lindner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fio Systems AG (Leipzig, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FYYO’ — Application No 14 589 261

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 in Case R 2337/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 in appeal proceedings R 2337/2016-4 in so far as it rejected the trade mark application in respect of the goods in Class 9;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/28

Action brought on 15 December 2017 — Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Alimentos Friorizados (Alfrisa)

(Case T-820/17)

(2018/C 094/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Frinsa del Noroeste, SA (Santa Eugenia de Ribeira, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alimentos Friorizados, SA (Barberá del Vallés, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Alfrisa’ — Application for registration No 14 899 223

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2017 in Case R 956/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul EUIPO’s decisions dismissing the opposition and the proceedings brought by the applicant in relation to EU Mark No 14 899 223, ‘Alfrisa’, for goods and services in classes 29 and 35;

— order the applicant for the trade mark at issue to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 85 of the EU Trade Mark Regulation and rule 94 of the Regulation implementing the Community Trade Mark Regulation

Pleas in law
—

That the decision of the PMO of 28 February 2017 notifying the applicant that the expatriation allowance of 16 % granted to him and the transport expenses which he had received under Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, during the period of employment at EASME, with effect from 16 May 2014, is annulled;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/47

Action brought on 8 January 2018 — Addiko Bank v EUIPO (STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING)

(Case T-9/18)

(2018/C 072/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Addiko Bank AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Seling, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING’ — Application for registration No 16 133 449

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2017 in Case R 1090/2017-2

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) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/53

Action brought on 29 January 2018 — NGV v EUIPO (WEIN FÜR PROFIS)

(Case T-57/18)

(2018/C 104/68)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: NGV GmbH (Wildeshausen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WEIN FÜR PROFIS’ — Application for registration No 15 326 531

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 in Case R 502/2017-1

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 94/31

Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Nova Brands v EUIPO — Natamil (Natamil)

(Case T-23/18)

(2018/C 094/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nova Brands SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Natamil GmbH (Munich, Germany)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘natamil’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 235 069

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2017 in Case R 1910/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/48

Action brought on 9 February 2018 — AB Mauri Italy v EUIPO — Lesaffre et Compagnie (FERMIN)

(Case T-78/18)

(2018/C 112/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: AB Mauri Italy SpA (Casteggio, Italy) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister and G. Hussey, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lesaffre et Compagnie (Paris, France)

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 FERMIN — Application for registration No 10 999 613

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 in Joined Cases R 2027/2016-4 and R 2254/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partly annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law
Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU

A further infringement of the procedural requirements results from the fact that the contested decision is insufficiently reasoned and therefore is not compatible with the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/35

Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Knauf v EUIPO (upgrade your personality)

(Case T-102/18)

(2018/C 134/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Martin Knauf (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Jaeger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ‘upgrade your personality’ — Application for registration No 15 750 029

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2017 in Case R 1011/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— register the EU trade mark ‘upgrade your personality’ for the following goods in Classes 9 and 28: Class 9 — Recorded computer programs; Computer programs [downloadable software]; Software; Games software; Software programs for video games; Computer programmes for data processing; Computer graphics software; Virtual reality game software; Virtual reality software; Optical data carriers bearing recorded software; Pre-recorded magnetic data carriers; Video game cassettes; Videotapes; Pre-recorded videos Class 28 — Games consoles.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/31

Action brought on 16 February 2018 — Equity Cheque Capital Corporation v EUIPO (DIAMOND CARD)

(Case T-91/18)

(2018/C 134/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Equity Cheque Capital Corporation (Victoria, Canada) (represented by: I. Berkeley, barrister, P. Wheeler and C. Rani, solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark DIAMOND CARD — Application for registration No 15 775 422

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2017 in Case R 1544/2017-4

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 142/64

Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Bayer Intellectual Property v EUIPO (Representation of a heart)

(Case T-123/18)

(2018/C 142/82)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (Monheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a heart) — Application for registration No 15 701 568

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2017 in Case R 145/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the applicant’s appeal before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

With the first plea, the applicant claims that the contested act violates the defendant’s duty to state reasons, as it lacks sufficient reasoning for the rejection of his candidacy. While ENISA provided the applicant with his score for each selection criterion and his total score, the evaluation of all the candidates was comparative in nature and thus the points awarded to each applicant were the result of such a comparative analysis. The applicant thus contends that, in view of the fact that ENISA failed to communicate to him a specific reasoning for the points awarded to him for each criterion, including the comparative advantages of the successful candidates who advanced to the interviews and tests stage, it failed to provide a sufficient reasoning that would allow the applicant to ascertain whether the act adversely affecting him was well founded and whether it was appropriate to bring proceedings before the Tribunal and, secondly, to enable the Tribunal to review the legality of the act.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/67

Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (BALLER’S PUNCH)

(Case T-134/18)

(2018/C 142/86)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH (Nordhausen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark BALLER’S PUNCH — Application for registration No 14 823 306

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2017 in Case R 998/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 13 March 2017 in Opposition B002643172;

— register the opposed mark for all goods covered by the application;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/53

Action brought on 22 February 2018 — VI v Commission

(Case T-109/18)

(2018/C 161/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VI (represented by: G. Pandey and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, declare Article 90 of the Staff Regulation invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings under Article 270 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

— annul, first, the decision of 14 November 2017 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged on 13 July 2017, including the rejection of the applicant’s request for 50 000 euros in compensation;

— annul, second, the decision of 19 April 2017 of EPSO rejecting her request for review of the decision of the Selection Board not to admit her to the next phase of the competition;

— annul, third, the decision of 6 February 2017 at the online EPSO account not to include the applicant in the draft list of officials selected for the purposes of the competition under the EPSO/AD/323/16;

— annul, fourth, the open notice of competition EPSO/AD/323/16, published on 26 May 2016, and in its entirety the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid competition;

— award 50 000 euros in compensation to the applicant for the damaged incurred because of the above unlawful contested decisions; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by EPSO/Selection Board concerning the evaluation of the working experience of the applicant, including the breach of Annex III to the Notice of Competition at issue detailing the required working experience.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s right to be heard, and, further, breach of the duty to state reasons and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

3. Third plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1/58, (1) breach of Articles 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to those Regulations and, further, breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

(1) Regulation No. 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958 (I), p. 59).
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo and repealing Common Position 2008/369/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 30), as amended by Council Decision 2016/2231/CFSP of 12 December 2016 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2016 L 336, p. 7), and 2b(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2005 L 193, p. 1) are unlawful.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/39

Action brought on 9 March 2018 — VP v Cedefop

(Case T-187/18)

(2018/C 166/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VP (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present appeal admissible and founded;

— annul the decision of 12 May 2017 of the defendant rejecting the request of the applicant to renew the employment contract for an indefinite period;

— annul the decision of 1 December 2017 of the defendant rejecting the complaint of the applicant of 9 August 2017 against the decision of 12 May 2017;

— order the compensation of the immaterial damage suffered by the applicant, evaluated ex aequo et bono to 100 000 (one hundred thousand) euros;

— order the compensation of the material damage suffered by the applicant; and

— order the reimbursement of all the costs incurred by the applicant for the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law, alleging that: the decision of the defendant not to renew the employment contract of the applicant was adopted in violation of the right to be heard, the obligation of duty of care, the obligation to state reasons, in violation of the duty to hear the immediate superior; it suffers under a manifest error of appreciation and is vitiated by a misuse of powers.
—

hear the case in camera in accordance with Article 31 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU and with Article 109 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court, in case the General Court should consider that the organisation of a hearing is necessary in the case at hand; and