ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/42

Action brought on 11 November 2016 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (Packaging for ice cream cornets)

(Case T-794/16)

(2017/C 022/58)

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 ‘Packaging for ice cream cornets’ — Community design No 002 343 244-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2016 in Case R 1144/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare invalid RCD No. 002343244-0001 ‘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,

— Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/48

Action brought on 17 November 2016 — MIP Metro v EUIPO — Afnor (N & NF TRADING)

(Case T-807/16)

(2017/C 022/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Association française de normalisation (Afnor) (La Plaine Saint-Denis, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘N & NF TRADING’ — International registration No 1 086 884 designating the European Union

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2016 in Case R 1109/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/40

Action brought on 29 November 2016 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO — Digital Print Group O. Schimek (Foto Paradies)

(Case T-843/16)

(2017/C 038/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: T. Strack and O. Bludovsky, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Digital Print Group O. Schimek GmbH (Nürnberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Foto Paradies’ — European Union trade mark No 10 707 933

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2016 in Case R 1194/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error in the classification of FERTISAC SL as a large enterprise. — The applicant claims in this regard that Article 2(1) of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36) (EC) provides that the category of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is constituted by enterprises that employ fewer than 250 persons and which have an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 50 million or an annual balance sheet not exceeding EUR 43 million. There are two threshold criteria to be met for an undertaking to be classified as an SME. It is not just a question of meeting only one of those criteria (as follows from the decision of the ECHA, inasmuch as it applied only one of those criteria: the annual turnover), clearly overlooking the first requirement, namely, the number of persons, which is clearly differentiated by the conjunction ‘and’. However, at no time has FERTISAC SL exceeded the threshold of employing more than 250 persons.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/27

Action brought on 13 December 2016 — Toontrack Music AB v EUIPO (‘SUPERIOR DRUMMER’)

(Case T-895/16)

(2017/C 046/31)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Toontrack Music AB (Umeå, Sweden) (represented by: L.E. Ström, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SUPERIOR DRUMMER’ — Application for registration No 13 945 019

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2016 in Case R 2438/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings and to bear its own costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging defects affecting the substantive legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into eight parts. — First part, according to which the Quaestors’ decision does not seek to establish the supposedly unwarranted nature of the sums paid. It follows that the decision is incomplete, in that it concerns only the recovery of those sums. At the present stage, no decision exists concerning a finding that the sums paid to the applicant were in fact unwarranted, and the Secretary-General’s measure should therefore be withdrawn, as should the decision ordering the recovery of the sums in dispute. — Second part, according to which the contested measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. — Third part, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. — Fourth part, regarding the burden of proof, inasmuch as it is not for the applicant to demonstrate that the assistant in question was in fact working for him and that the work carried out by that assistant was necessary and directly related to the exercise of the applicant’s parliamentary mandate. — Fifth part, according to which the contested measures undermine the political rights of local assistants. — Sixth part, according to which the contested measures are vitiated by a misuse of powers and abuse of process. — Seventh part, according to which the contested measures are discriminatory. In addition, the sole purpose of the contested decisions is to damage the applicant’s political activity. — Eighth part, alleging that the applicant’s independence as a Member of the European Parliament has been undermined.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/42

Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Chefaro Ireland v EUIPO — Laboratoires M&L (NUIT PRECIEUSE)

(Case T-905/16)

(2017/C 053/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Chefaro Ireland DAC (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratoires M&L SA (Manosque, France)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘NUIT PRECIEUSE’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 063 952

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2016 in Case R 2596/2015-4

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 Chefaro Ireland.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/20

Action brought on 6 December 2016 — Dow Corning and Dow Corning Europe v Commission

(Case T-858/16)

(2017/C 046/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Dow Corning Corporation (Midland, Michigan, United States) and Dow Corning Europe (Seneffe, Belgium) (represented by: S. Verschuur, M. Stroungi and L. Mélia, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Articles 1-4 of the Commission’s decision of 11 January 2016 on State Aid SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) on the Excess Profit Exemption State aid Scheme implemented by Belgium (‘the contested decision’) (1);

— in the alternative, annul Article 2(1) of the contested decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 (2) by incorrectly qualifying the excess profit rulings as a scheme, thereby committing various manifest errors of law, fact and assessment and also giving an inadequate statement of reasons.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by committing a material error of law and a manifest error of assessment when interpreting and applying the reference system for purposes of assessing whether the excess profit rulings conferred a selective advantage.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by incorrectly establishing that the excess profit rulings conferred a selective advantage, thereby committing various manifest errors of fact and assessment, failing to conduct a diligent and impartial examination and giving an inadequate statement of reasons.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 16 of Regulation 2015/1589 and various principles of EU law by committing a material error of law and a manifest error of assessment and giving an inadequate statement of reasons when establishing the methodology to quantify the alleged aid.

(1) Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (notified under document C(2015) 9837) (OJ L 260, 2016, p. 61)

(2) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ L 248, 2015, p. 9)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/22

Action brought on 14 September 2016 — PJ v EUIPO — Erdmann & Rossi (Erdmann & Rossi)

(Case T-664/16)

(2017/C 070/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: PJ (represented by: B. Schürmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: Applicant

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Erdmann & Rossi’ — EU trade mark No 10 310 481

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2016 in Case R 1670/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the invalidity proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division.

Pleas in law

— infringement of Articles 52, 56, 63, 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009

— infringement of Rules 50, 55 and 94 of Regulation No 2868/95;

— infringement of Article 12 of Regulation No 216/96;

— infringement of Article 6 ECHR;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/32

Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Access Info Europe v Commission

(Case T-852/16)

(2017/C 053/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Access Info Europe (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision C(2016) 6030 of the Commission of 19 September 2016 refusing to grant access to documents requested by the applicant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1);

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs for conducting the proceedings including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine international relations.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine the protection of pending court proceedings initiated in cases T-192/16, T-193/16 and T-257/16 and that access to the said documents would undermine the Commission’s interest in seeking legal advice and receiving frank, objective and comprehensive advice. It is also argued under this plea that the Commission failed to recognize that access to the requested documents is of overriding public interest and that they should for that reason be disclosed.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(3), first and second subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine the decision-making process and/or by failing to recognize the existence of an overriding public interest, particularly given that the decision-making process in question has been finalised.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging, in subsidiary order, that the Commission misapplied Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by not granting at least partial access to the requested documents which it withheld in their entirety.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/37

Action brought on 3 January 2017 — J.M.-E.V. e hijos v EUIPO — Masi (MASSI)

(Case T-2/17)

(2017/C 063/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: J.M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL (Granollers, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez and J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alberto Masi (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASSI’ — EU trade mark No 414 086

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2016 (rectified by decision of 3 November 2016) in Case R 793/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the application for a declaration of invalidity filed by Mr. Alberto Masi against EUTM Registration No. 414086 ‘MASSI’ in class 12;

— order EUIPO, and the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO in case it takes part in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 56(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (res judicata);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/40

Action brought on 27 January 2017 — ADDE v Parliament

(Case T-48/17)

(2017/C 078/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Defalque, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Parliament of 21 November 2016 on the 2015 funding of the ADDE party declaring an amount of 500 615,55 euros as ineligible and requesting the reimbursement of the amount of 172 654,92 euros

— annul the decision of the European Parliament of 15 December 2016, inasmuch as it limits the pre-financing amount for the 2017 grant to 33 % of the maximum grant amount and makes the payment of the pre-financing amount conditional on the presentation of a first demand guarantee, and, as a consequence, article I.4.1 of the grant award decision FINS-2017-13 appended to this decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for annulment of the decision of 21 November 2016, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of good administration and violation of the rights of the defence.

2. Second plea in law, alleging several manifest errors of assessment which give rise to a breach of Articles 7, 8 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJ 2003 L 297, p. 1)

3. Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment

In support of the action for annulment of the decision of 15 December 2016, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of good administration and violation of the rights of the defence.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of article 134 of the EU financial regulation.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union and of Article 27(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages. By adopting the contested Regulation the Commission is alleged to have interfered in the Czech national requirements for the complete denaturing of alcohol, despite the fact that the Czech Republic had not sent any communication to the Commission under Article 27(3) of Directive 92/83 and the Commission had repeatedly, on the other hand, communicated that it disagreed with that approach. Under Article 27(4) of Directive 92/83, it is however not permissible to interfere in a Member States national requirements for the complete denaturing of alcohol without a communication from that Member State.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/17

Action brought on 24 January 2017 — No Limits v EUIPO — Morellato (NO LIMITS)

(Case T-43/17)

(2017/C 095/26)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: No Limits International Investments SA (Bissone, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Canu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Morellato SpA (Fratte di Santa Giustina in Colle, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘NO LIMITS’ — European Union trade mark No 67 967

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 in Case R 2007/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings in Case R 2007/2015-5 before the Board of Appeal, of the proceedings in Case 2919C before the Cancellation Division, and of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.

Pleas in law

— Infringement and/or misapplication of Article 53(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — error in the contested decision regarding the relevant date for the assessment of the invalidity of the EU trade mark;

— Infringement and/or misapplication of Article 53 of Regulation No 207/2009 — absent, insufficient and contradictory reasoning with regard to the applicability to the EU trade mark of the findings made by the Corte d’Appello di Milano (Milan Court of Appeal, Italy) in judgment No 4425/2013, which has become final;

— Absent, insufficient and contradictory reasoning with regard to the application of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 to the EU trade mark;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 69 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1), amended by Council Regulation No 473/2009 of 25 May 2009 (OJ 2009 L 144, p. 3), in so far as it does not allow the deduction of a sum of EUR 5 364 682,52 (non-reusable amounts) in the clearance of accounts concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in the last execution year of EAFRD 2007-2013 programming period.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/43

Action brought on 7 February 2017 — Erwin Müller v EUIPO — Novus Tablet Technology Finland (NOVUS)

(Case T-89/17)

(2017/C 112/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Erwin Müller GmbH (Lingen, Germany) (represented by: N. Grüger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novus Tablet Technology Finland Oy (Turku, Finland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘NOVUS’ — Application for registration No 13 206 611

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2016 in Case R 2413/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul in part the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 2 October 2015, Application No B 2 456 336, namely in so far as they relate to goods in Class 9 — ‘bags adapted for laptops; holders adapted for mobile phones; computer peripheral devices’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicants’ superiors failed to respond to the applicants despite the urgency and seriousness of the facts alleged by the latter. The applicants consider in particular that those facts should have led to action on the part of their superiors in order to bring to an end: — the unlawful activities; — the abusive and intimidating conduct of their head of unit and the unreasonable deadline of the administration for taking measures; — their difficult work conditions, which could have avoided a continued intervention of their lawyer.