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

Action brought on 8 September 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT10)

(Case T-558/20)

(2020/C 371/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

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 GT10 — Application for registration No 14 738 306

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2020 in Case R 2554/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public;

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public;

— Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections;

— Failure to apply national rules under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Amigüitos pets & life (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect)

(Case T-616/20)

(2020/C 399/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Amigüitos pets & life, SA (Murcia, Spain)

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 THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect in colours white, red and black — Application for registration No 15 385 719)

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 July 2020 in Case R 424/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceeding before the General Court and order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 91(1) first sentence of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 46(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

regarding both the evaluation of the applicant’s appraisal reports and the method of the comparative assessment ((i) on the absence of any comparative assessment and (ii) on the lack of comparative assessment with staff members from the same DG and of the same grade).
Action brought on 30 September 2020 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER

(Case T-606/20)

(2020/C 414/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Austrian Power Grid AG (Vienna, Austria) and seven other applicants (represented by: M. Levitt, lawyer, B. Byrne and D. Jubrail, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul, insofar as it affects the applicants, the contested decision;

— annul Article 1 of Decision No. 02/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 and Articles 3(3), 3(4)(b), 4(6), 6, 11(1)(c) and 12 of the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation;

— order ACER to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this application, the applicants seek the annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 16 July 2020 in Case A-001-2020 (consolidated) dismissing the appeals brought against Decision No. 02/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 on the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation and, as relevant, of Decision No. 02/2020 of ACER and Annex I to that decision.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law following the finding of the defendant’s Board of Appeal that the defendant had the competence to supplement and amend the provisions of an implementing act, the EBGL (1) by taking a decision that departed from the agreed position of the national regulatory authorities, in breach of the principle of conferral and the ACER Regulation

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law through the failure of the defendant’s Board of Appeal to apply correctly the requirements for the design and operation of the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation, endorsing ACER’s amendment of the provisions of an implementing act, the EBGL.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principle of good administration, the rights of defence and the obligation to state reasons, and fails to discharge the legal obligations of the defendant’s Board of Appeal as an appeal board.

(1) Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 of 23 November 2017 establishing a guideline on electricity balancing (OJ 2017 L 312, p. 6).
Action brought on 5 October 2020 — FZ and Others v Commission

(Case T-618/20)

(2020/C 433/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FZ and 17 other applicants (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission establishing the applicants’ pay slip for the month of December 2019 in so far as it applies, for the first time, correction coefficients, which were prescribed with retroactive effect from 1 April and 1 July 2019;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on pleas in law, alleging infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), infringement of the principle of equal treatment in terms of equivalence of purchasing power, and manifest error of assessment.

The applicants claim that, in order to set the correction coefficient applicable to the salary of the applicants posted outside the European Union, EUROSTAT should collect data specific to their place of employment, in accordance with the rules for application of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations, as laid down in Annex XI thereto.

They also argue that the coefficients, which were laid down in the context of an international collaboration agreement between EUROSTAT, the OECD and the UN, fell from January 2018 to January 2019 from 239,7 to 94,0 whereas, for that same period, the coefficients applied to the salaries of UN personnel were increased to take account of inflation. In 2017, the Congolese franc (CDF) underwent a sharp devaluation as against the dollar (USD) and the euro, which, coupled with substantial inflation, resulted in a significant increase in prices in USD, according to the analysis of the IMF.

The applicants take the view that the defendant has not explained how the coefficients applied take account of those essential elements.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 26, 49 and 56 TFEU, Articles 16 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union juncto Article 5(4) TEU and the principle of proportionality as a general principle of Union law as to unlawful restriction of the freedom to provide services, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to conduct a business.
—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1130 of 30 July 2020 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (3) and amending Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (4) in so far as it maintains the name of the applicant on the list of entities set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2016/44; and
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 22a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, infringement of Article 3.3 of the Charter of the Tasks and Responsibilities of EEAS Imprest Administrators, infringement of Article 3 of the Code of Professional Standards for EEAS Financial Audit Staff and infringement of Article 2 of Decision PROC HR(2011)008 of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 November 2020 — Sam McKnight v EUIPO — Carolina Herrera (COOL GIRL)

(Case T-670/20)

(2021/C 19/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sam McKnight Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carolina Herrera Ltd (New York, New York, United States)

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 COOL GIRL — Application for registration No 16 681 975

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 August 2020 in Case R 689/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in case Carolina Herrera joins the proceedings, the intervener.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 November 2020 — Asian Gear v EUIPO — Multimox (Scooter)

(Case T-686/20)

(2021/C 35/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Asian Gear BV (Pijnacker, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Gravendeel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Multimox Holding BV (Rijen, Netherlands)

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 607 155-0004

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2020 in Case R 1043/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul or vary the contested decision, so that Community design No 607 155-0004 is declared invalid;

— in the alternative, confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of 30 April 2018 and annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs to the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 November 2020 — Canisius v EUIPO — Beiersdorf (CCLABELLE VIENNA)

(Case T-694/20)

(2021/C 28/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Maria Alexandra Canisius (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Asenbauer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beiersdorf AG (Hamburg, 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 figurative mark containing the word element CCLABELLE VIENNA — Application for registration No 17 592 461

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2020 in Case R 2233/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision insofar as the opposition was upheld in respect of the goods in Classes 3 and 16;

— order the defendant and Beiersdorf, should Beiersdorf join this proceeding, to pay its own costs and to bear all the fees and costs of the applicant;

— dismiss the opposition brought by Beiersdorf against the registration of application No 17 592 461 and order EUIPO to allow the (contested) application No 17 592 461 to proceed to the registration in relation to all goods and services applied for in Classes 3, 16, and 25 as well as order Beiersdorf to bear its own costs and pay all the fees and costs incurred by the applicant due to the opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging a plea of illegality in that Article 33 of the Implementing Measures adopted by the decision of 19 May and 9 July 2008 of the Bureau of the European Parliament infringes the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, as a result inter alia of their lack of clarity and precision. The applicant claims that the lack of precision of the contested provisions results in the legal rules laid down in the Implementing Measures being governed by judicial decision. The detail of proof of a parliamentary assistant’s work was identified in the Bilde and Montel cases only in November 2017, since the Gorostiaga case of 2005 only concerns proof of payment of salaries by the paying agent. Thus, the contested provisions displayed as early as 2008 elements of uncertainty and lack of clarity. The applicant adds that, despite risks related to legal uncertainty, the European Parliament did not lay down precise and clear rules concerning the procedure for monitoring parliamentary assistance, nor did it formalise the member’s obligation to create and preserve, or even the regime of admissible, identifiable and dated evidence.
Action brought on 17 December 2020 — ExxonMobil Production Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-731/20)

(2021/C 44/80)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ExxonMobil Production Deutschland GmbH (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and J. Hoss, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 December 2020 (Ref. Ares (2020)7439507 — 08/12/2020); and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of 8 December 2020, by which the Commission refused, in the context of interlocutory proceedings before the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin and an application to that effect by the Umweltbundesamt, to participate in the transfer of emission allowances to provisionally secure the applicant’s entitlement to free allocation of emission allowances for the purposes of guaranteeing the effectiveness of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the preliminary ruling in Case C-271/20.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the Commission of 8 December 2020 affects the applicant directly and individually. It therefore has legal standing to bring proceedings.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission, in the context of granting interim relief on account of national court proceedings, is obliged by the principle of ensuring effective judicial protection, enshrined in EU law, to participate in securing any entitlement to allocation of emission allowances from being lost.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that Directive 2003/87/EC (1) and Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 (2) form the regulatory framework for such participation and the transfer of emission allowances to national accounts.

(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

(2) Commission Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 of 2 May 2013 establishing a Union Registry pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Decisions No 280/2004/EC and No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Regulations (EU) No 920/2010 and No 1193/2011 (OJ 2013 L 122, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 December 2020 — Deutschtec v EUIPO — Group A (HOLUX)

(Case T-738/20)

(2021/C 53/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutschtec GmbH (Petershagen/Eggersdorf, Germany) (represented by: R. Arnade, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Group A NV (Hasselt, Belgium)

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 HOLUX — Application for registration No 17 371 378

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2020 in Case R 223/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 26 November 2019 in case B 3 051 677 to the extent it upholds the opposition;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment and misinterpreted the REACH Regulation by requesting the tests on vertebrate animals on the Substance, by justifying the need for tests by reference to workers’ exposure and by failing to take the safety of the Substance as assessed under the Cosmetics Regulation into account.
—

annul, in whole or part, the decision of the Commission C(2020) 8138 final, dated 17 November 2020, ordering the recovery of Horizon 2020 grant monies amounting to EUR 161 990,80 plus interest, in respect of the audited period, and set aside the debit note referred to in Article 1 of the decision; or
1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), first, in that the applicant did not ‘receive orders’ within the meaning of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, so that she cannot be accused of infringing that provision, secondly, in that she could not have known that irregularities, of which she ought to have informed her superiors pursuant to Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, had been committed, and, thirdly, in that she did not in any event deserve, in view of the circumstances, a disciplinary penalty.
Action brought on 19 January 2021 — Amazon.com and Others v Commission

(Case T-19/21)

(2021/C 72/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Amazon.com, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States), Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Amazon EU Sàrl (Luxembourg), Amazon Europe Core Sàrl (Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Komninos and G. Tantulli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— partially annul Decision C(2020) 7692 final of the European Commission of 10 November 2020 for the part that excludes Italy from the scope of the investigation and from the legal consequences of Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003;

— order the Commission to bear the applicants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision unlawfully carved Italy out of the scope of Case AT.40703 and excluded Italy from the legal consequences of Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003. In so doing, the Contested Decision violated Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003 and undermined its effectiveness and/or it circumvented Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003 and defeated the purpose of its existence.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 January 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Kassl (STUDIO KASSL)

(Case T-7/21)

(2021/C 62/60)

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: Kassl Holding BV (Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

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: Application for the EU word mark STUDIO KASSL — Application for registration No 17 882 647

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2020 in Case R 880/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as in dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent it confirms the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in the opposition proceedings B 3 059 000, granting the EU trademark No 17 882 647 STUDIO KASSL (word mark), to designate goods in Class 25;

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

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.