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

Action brought on 20 April 2022 — Lifestyle Equities v EUIPO — Greenwich Polo Club (GREENWICH POLO CLUB)

(Case T-217/22)

(2022/C 237/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amstelveen, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Terpstra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Greenwich Polo Club, Inc. (Greenwich, Connecticut, 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 figurative mark GREENWICH POLO CLUB — European Union trade mark No 2 919 256

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2022 in Case R 1063/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 May 2022 — OmniActive Health Technologies v EUIPO — Pharmaselect International (LUTAMAX)

(Case T-242/22)

(2022/C 237/96)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: OmniActive Health Technologies Ltd (Mumbai, India) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, T. Dolde and C. Zimmer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pharmaselect International Beteiligungs GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

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 LUTAMAX — European Union trade mark No 3 472 974

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2022 in Joined Cases R 524/2021-1 and R 649/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision to the extent that it ordered EUTM No 3472974 LUTAMAX to remain on the register for ‘Dietary supplements adapted for medical or dietetic use for supporting eye health, none of the aforesaid goods for veterinary purposes’;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and/or the other party before the Board of Appeal (assuming it intervenes in the proceedings).

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 April 2022 — Cylus Cyber Security v EUIPO — Cylance (CYLUS)

(Case T-227/22)

(2022/C 244/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cylus Cyber Security Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: S. Bailey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cylance, Inc. (Irvine, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark CYLUS — Application for registration No 17 801 952

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 February 2022 in Case R 692/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 May 2022 — Consulta v EUIPO — Karlinger (ACASA)

(Case T-267/22)

(2022/C 257/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Consulta GmbH (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and S. Brandstätter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mario Karlinger (Sölden, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ACASA — EU trade mark No 7 587 165

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 January 2022 in Case R 487/2021-1

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 59(1)(a) read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 72(2) read in conjunction with 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 May 2022 — Dicofarm v EUIPO — Marco Viti Farmaceuitici (Vitis pharma Dicofarm group)

(Case T-303/22)

(2022/C 276/22)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Dicofarm SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Ferrari, L. Goglia and G. Rapaccini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marco Viti Farmaceuitici SpA (Vicenza, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Vitis pharma Dicofarm group — EU trade mark No 17 880 952

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2022 in Case R 1050/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it confirms the declaration of partial invalidity of EU trade mark No 17 880 952 made by the Cancellation Division of EUIPO by decision of 19 April 2021, Cancellation No 38283 C;

— annul the contested decision in so far as it orders the applicant to bear the costs incurred by Marco Viti Farmaceutici in the appeal proceedings before EUIPO;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
—

The applicant claims in this regard that in the context of previous subsidy schemes in which the applicant participated (in particular the 7th Framework Programme), the remuneration scheme excluded by the contested measures, despite having been examined by the Commission, had been considered eligible without reserve. The change in the decision of the Authority regarding the eligibility of the bonuses, for which it provides no explanation, thus constitutes an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, which has been upheld by the Court of Justice and the General Court on several occasions.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 June 2022 — Hacker-Pschorr Bräu v EUIPO — Vandělíková (HACKER SPACE)

(Case T-349/22)

(2022/C 284/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hacker-Pschorr Bräu GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Tenkhoff and T. Herzog, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jana Vandělíková (Prague, Czech Republic)

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 word mark HACKER SPACE — Application for registration No 18 144 157

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2022 in Case R 1268/2021-1

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 47(5) and Article 46 in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament;

— Infringement of Articles 2(c) and 7(1) of Commission delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;
Action brought on 30 May 2022 — Unsa Énergie v Commission

(Case T-322/22)

(2022/C 284/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Unsa Énergie (Bagnolet, France) (represented by: M.-P. Ogel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the letter of the European Commission COMP B.2/NP/mm *comp(2022)2975325 of 8 April 2022, by which the Commission rejects the complaint as inadmissible,

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(h) of Regulation 2015/1589, (1) on the ground that the Commission misconstrued the concept of interested party. The applicant submits that the Commission disregards the case-law according to which a trade union could be categorised as having the status of interested party where it is shown that that trade union’s interests might be affected by the granting of State aid.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24 of Regulation 2015/1589 and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to examine its complaint or request it to provide details as regards that complaint, in breach of Article 24 of Regulation 2015/1589 which confers various rights on interested parties.

(1) 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).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and the principle of equal treatment, as well as a manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant, the contested decision was adopted in breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and is the result of a manifest error of assessment in so far as, first, the applicant has consistently demonstrated outstanding merit whereas the contested decision places him in a situation of slow career development and, second, the only reproach made in his last staff report taken into account resulted from a manifest error of assessment which was recognised by the appointing authority in its reply of 3 March 2022 to a complaint made by the applicant on 28 October 2021. Finally, the applicant states that the European External Action Service has still not established a system of staff reports and promotions which allows a comparative examination under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in accordance with the requirements laid down by the case-law.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 June 2022 — adp Merkur v EUIPO — Play’n GO Marks (GAME OF GLADIATORS)

(Case T-350/22)

(2022/C 294/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: adp Merkur GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Play’n GO Marks ltd. (Sliema, Malta)

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 word mark GAME OF GLADIATORS — Application for registration No 18 022 754

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2022 in Case R 2289/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Crédit agricole and Others v SRB

(Case T-410/22)

(2022/C 311/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and the 48 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2022/18 of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of 2022 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;

— pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, (1) the Implementing Regulation (2) and the Delegated Regulation (3) inapplicable: — Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; — Articles 4(2), 5,6, 7 and 20 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; — Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-391/22, Société générale and Others v SRB.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 1).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation No 806/2014 with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(3) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59 with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 June 2022 — Bazhaev v Council

(Case T-362/22)

(2022/C 303/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Musa Yusopovich Bazhaev (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 (1) of 8 April 2022, in so far as it includes the applicant’s name in the annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 (2) of 8 April 2022, in so far as it includes the applicant’s name in the annex to Council Regulation (EU) No 2014/269 of 17 March 2014;

— order the Council to pay provisional damages of EUR 1 000 000 for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant;

— 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.

1. First plea, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection.

2. Second plea, alleging manifest error of assessment as regards the grounds given by the Council.

3. Third plea, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of equal treatment.

4. Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 55).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 3).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

(Case T-415/22)

(2022/C 326/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and C. Milbradt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

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 word mark GRILLOUMI — Application for registration No 15 963 291

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2022 in Case R 1284/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by wrongly analysing the likelihood of confusion regarding certification marks;

— The Board of Appeal further infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 when it carried out an erroneous analysis of the similarity of goods versus services in this case;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 July 2022 — Productos Ibéricos Calderón y Ramos v EUIPO — Hijos de Rivera (ESTRELLA DE CASTILLA)

(Case T-384/22)

(2022/C 340/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Productos Ibéricos Calderón y Ramos, SL (Salamanca, Spain) (represented by: J. C. Erdozain López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hijos de Rivera, SA (La Coruña, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative trade mark ESTRELLA DE CASTILLA — Application No 17 992 941

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2022 in Case R 1576/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener, in the event that the latter appears before the Court and contests the application, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 July 2022 — MEDEX v EUIPO — Gerrit Cornelis Johan Stein (medex)

(Case T-419/22)

(2022/C 326/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: MEDEX, živilska industrija, d.o.o. (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Čuden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gerrit Cornelis Johan Stein (Elp, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark medex in colours maroon, yellow and white — European Union trade mark No 10 307 494

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2022 in Case R 1361/2021-5

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 the obligation to state reasons under 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 5 August 2022 — Thomas Henry v EUIPO (MATE MATE)

(Case T-482/22)

(2022/C 359/116)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Henry GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, D. Mienert and J. Si-Ha Selbmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark MATE — Application No 18 091 934

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2022 in Case R 406/2021-1

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

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 1 July 2022 — Fresenius Kabi Austria and Others v Commission

(Case T-416/22)

(2022/C 340/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Fresenius Kabi Austria GmbH (Graz, Austria) and 14 other applicants (represented by: W. Rehmann and A. Knierim, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare Commission Decision of 24 May 2022 C(2022) 3591 null and void insofar as it orders the Member States of the European Union to suspend the national marketing authorisations for the medicinal products as referred to in Annex I thereof;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings;

— in the alternative, by way of precautionary motion, declare Commission Decision of 24 May 2022 C(2022) 3591 null and void insofar as it orders Member States of the European Union to suspend the national Marketing Authorisations for the medicinal products of the claimants for the medicinal products as referred to in Annex I thereof.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the requirements of Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) justifying a suspension of the marketing authorisation for hydroxyethyl starch-containing medicinal products are not met. Consequently, the Commission cannot render a decision requiring that Member States will by way of implementing the decision suspend the respective marketing authorisations.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of the Commission is infringing the precautionary principle.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the suspension of the marketing authorisation of hydroxyethyl starch-containing medicinal products is neither adequate nor proportionate to address the safety concerns resulting from the Drug Utilisation Study. Off-label use should not lead to suspension of in-label use that has well documented beneficial effects, particularly in the absence of any new adverse safety signals.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision is contradictory in itself and, therefore, lacks sufficient reasoning.

(1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).