ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/44

Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Mediterranean Premium Spirits v EUIPO — G-Star Raw (GINRAW)

(Case T-258/16)

(2016/C 251/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Mediterranean Premium Spirits, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Granell and J. Romaní Lluch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: G-Star Raw CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GINRAW’ — Application for registration No 12 431 681

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 1583/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision rejecting the application for registration of EU trademark No 12 431 681 ‘GINRAW’ in classes 21 and 33 and, consequently, grant the registration of the mark;

— order EUIPO and, if applicable, the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/61

Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Gulli v EUIPO — Laverana (Lybera)

(Case T-284/16)

(2016/C 270/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Diego Gulli (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: M. Andreolini and F. Andreolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laverana GmbH & Co.KG (Wennigsen, 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 ‘Lybera’ — Application for registration No 12 155 743

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fith Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2016 in Case R 3219/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/44

Action brought on 17 May 2016 – Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Scouring Environnement

(Case T-238/16)

(2016/C 260/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, agent, assisted by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Scouring Environnement SARL (Tauriac, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of 60 000,00 euros in relation to the Grant Agreement No 287071 ‘BiMed – Bicarbonate media blasting for paint-varnish removal and dry surface treatment’, plus the amount of 3 600,00 euros as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,65 % for the period between 12 September 2014 and 3 May 2016; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law.

The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to submit the required reports, financial statements and deliverables of period 1, in accordance with Article 3 of the Grant Agreement, Article II.2(3) and Article II.4 Annex II to the Grant Agreement. Accordingly, the applicant terminated the Grant Agreement on the basis of Article II.38 Annex II to the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of 60 000,00 euros that had already been paid to the coordinator in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Consequently, the Applicant issued debit note for the recovery of the pre-financing, which remains the property of the applicant until final payment.

The facts giving rise to Scouring Environnement SARL’s obligations, as coordinator, are widely undisputed in the present case, as no objection were raised by the defendant in relation to the circumstances of the termination and about the calculation of the amount to be re-paid to the applicant.

Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/37

Action brought on 7 June 2016 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MONT)

(Case T-293/16)

(2016/C 279/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kaane American International Tobacco Co. Ltd. (Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, I. Valdelomar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Tobacco FZCO (Dubai, United Arab Emirates)

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 figurative mark containing the word elements ‘GOLD MONT’ – EU trade mark No 11 803 831

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 in Case R 2699/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— accept the present appeal;

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the suspension of the Appeal R 2699/2014-4 until a decision on the parallel proceedings R 1857/2015-4 (which is currently appealed before the General Court) becomes definitive;

— condemn EUIPO (The Boards of Appeal) or subsidiary the other party in the proceedings to bear the costs and fees of the present proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/55

Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Sun Media v EUIPO — Meta4 Spain (METAPORN)

(Case T-273/16)

(2016/C 270/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Media Ltd (Central Hong Kong, Hong-Kong Special Administrative Region of China) (represented by: A. Schnider, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meta4 Spain, SA (Las Rozas, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘METAPORN’ — Application for registration No 11 819 281

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 in Joined Cases R 653/2015-2 and R 674/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, to bear their own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the plaintiff in the proceedings before the General Court and in the appellate proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Articles 75 et seq of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/28

Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Grupo Riberebro Integral and Riberebro Integral v Commission

(Case T-313/16)

(2016/C 287/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Grupo Riberebro Integral, SL (Alfaro, Spain) and Riberebro Integral, SA (Alfaro, Spain) (represented by: R. Allendesalazar Corcho and A. Rincón García-Loygorri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 1933 final of 6 April 2016 relating to a proceeding under 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, in Case AT.39965 — Mushrooms, as regards the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants, since it is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment by the European Commission of the facts on the basis of which it refused to recognise the applicants’ inability to pay;

— in the alternative, pursuant to the unlimited jurisdiction granted in Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and in accordance with Article 261 TFEU, vary Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 1933 final of 6 April 2016 relating to a proceeding under 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, in Case AT.39965 — Mushrooms, reducing the fine imposed on Riberebro;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present proceedings arise from the leniency application submitted by a specific company to the European Commission, in relation to that company’s participation in a cartel in the canned mushrooms sector. As the text of the decision itself states, that cartel sought to stabilise the mushroom market and stop the decline of prices.

The applicants do not dispute the facts or their legal characterisation, which they have already accepted in cooperating in the leniency procedure and in their reply to the statement of objections, in which they stated that they accepted the description and legal assessment of the facts. In the present proceedings, it is the assessment and proportionality of the fine imposed which are contested.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the defendant. — It is submitted in that regard that the manifest error of assessment referred to vitiates the assessment of the facts on the basis of which the applicants’ inability to pay was rejected. Indeed, the imposition of the fine irretrievably jeopardises the applicants’ economic viability, would cause their assets to lose all their value and fails to take into account the social and economic context.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/23

Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Storage Beyond Scale)

(Case T-253/16)

(2016/C 287/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cleversafe, Inc. (Chicago, Illinois, États-Unis d'Amérique) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Storage Beyond Scale’ — Application for registration No 13 975 446

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 2240/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/28

Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Make up for ever v EUIPO — L’Oréal (MAKE UP FOR EVER)

(Case T-320/16)

(2016/C 296/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Make up for ever (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Caron, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER’ — EU trade mark No 3 416 443

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 985/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the Community word mark ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER’ No 003416443 valid for all of the goods and services remaining referred to in the application;

— annul the contested decision;

— remit the case to EUIPO for further prosecution if necessary;

— render the company l’OREAL liable for the costs resulting from the proceedings before the Cancellation Division of EUIPO, the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the present action before the General Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/36

Action brought on 22 June 2016 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACCINO)

(Case T-337/16)

(2016/C 296/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gianni Versace SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘VERSACCINO’ — Application for registration No 11 957 685

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2016 in Case R 1172/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present action;

— annul the contested decision and, consequently, register mark No 11 957 685 in respect of all the goods claimed, without prejudice to those already granted;

— order the other party to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/50

Action brought on 7 July 2016 — Zoetis Belgium v Commission

(Case T-363/16)

(2016/C 305/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zoetis Belgium (Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

— in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

— in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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 has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.

(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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/50

Action brought on 4 July 2016 — Brita v EUIPO — Aquis Wasser-Luft-Systeme (maxima)

(Case T-356/16)

(2016/C 305/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Brita GmbH (Taunusstein, Germany) (represented by: S. Maaßen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aquis Wasser-Luft-Systeme GmbH (Rebstein, Switzerland)

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 No 1 128 639 designating the European Union

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2016 in Case R 99/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of 11 November 2014 and alter them to the effect that the opposition is granted and the extension of international registration IR 1128639 ‘MAXIMA’ to the field of EU trade marks is denied;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the action and the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging the formal illegality of the European Parliament’s Decision D 201714 of 9 June 2016 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure 06D30/2015/M064, concerning the procedure ‘France-Strasbourg: Framework contract for asbestos-removal work in the European Parliament buildings in Strasbourg’ (OJ 2015/S 242-438527) and of the decision to award that contract to another tenderer (‘the contested decision’), in so far as the person who signed the letter sent to the applicant, containing the contested decision, did not enjoy any delegation of authority, which is necessary to allow him to engage the responsibility of the contracting authority, namely the European Parliament.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/33

Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Luciad v Commission

(Case T-369/16)

(2016/C 314/45)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Luciad (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by: D. Arts, P. Smet and I. Panis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare the application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium to be admissible and well founded;

— annul the Commission Decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107(1) TFEU. — The applicant claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in asserting that the tax ‘rulings’ may not be regarded as an implementing measure and that the excess profit scheme laid down thereby must be regarded as an aid measure.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU by virtue of inadequate reasoning and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as there is no measure that distorts or threatens to distort competition. — The applicant argues that the Commission fails to indicate how the excess profit scheme distort or threaten to distort competition. — The Commission wrongly assumed that a tax ‘ruling’ in application of the excess profit scheme automatically leads to an unburdening for the undertakings concerned and that, in not taking into account the tax levied or to be levied abroad on excess profit, the Commission wrongly concluded that the excess profit exemption scheme distorts or threatens to distort competition.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU by virtue of inadequate reasoning and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the contested scheme does not adversely affect trade between Member States.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the contested scheme does not confer any selective advantage. — The applicant argues that the excess profit scheme is a general tax scheme that applies to every Belgian undertaking, and that it is an intrinsic part of the reference system of the Belgian corporate tax system that specific rules provide for cross-border situations, meaning that the Commission makes a manifest error of assessment when it stated that the excess profit scheme constitutes a derogation from the reference system, on the one hand, and from the arm’s length principle, on the other hand.

(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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/44

Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Carrera Brands v EUIPO — Autec (Carrera)

(Case T-419/16)

(2016/C 343/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Carrera Brands Ltd (Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: C. Markowsky, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Autec AG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: the applicant

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Carrera’ — EU trade mark No 4 630 711

Proceedings before EUIPO: revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2016 in Case R 278/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul paragraph 2 of the operative part of the contested decision and amend it to the extent that the decision of the Cancellation Division of 21 January 2015 is annulled;

— annul the contested decision with regard to the rejection of the applicant’s request for the proceedings to be stayed; and

— in the alternative: amend the contested decision in such a way that the applicant’s request of 22 August 2014 for the proceedings to be stayed, repeated on 21 May 2015 in the appeal proceedings, is granted;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/46

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Hoffmann v EUIPO (Genius)

(Case T-425/16)

(2016/C 343/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Karl Hoffmann (Bad Schwalbach, Germany) (represented by: C. Jonas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Genius’ — Application No 13 509 071

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2016 in Case R 1631/2015-5

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 2 August 2016 — Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales v EUIPO — Aromas Selective (Aa AROMAS artesanales)

(Case T-426/16)

(2016/C 364/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales, SL (Arganda del Rey, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aromas Selective, SL (Dos Hermanas, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Aa AROMAS artesanales’– Application for registration No 12 215 018

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2016 in Case R 766/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Existence of priority rights and peaceful co-existence on the market and in the registration of the allegedly conflicting marks.

— Weak distinctive character of the term ‘AROMAS’.