ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-410/18: Action brought on 4 July 2018 — Silgan Closures and Silgan Holdings v Commission

Action brought on 4 July 2018 — Silgan Closures and Silgan Holdings v Commission

(Case T-410/18)

Parties

Applicants: Silgan Closures GmbH (Munich, Germany), Silgan Holdings Inc. (Stamford, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: H. Wollmann, D. Seeliger, R. Grafunder and V. Weiss, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision pursuant to Article 264 TFEU in so far as it relates to the applicants;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicants request that the Court annul in part Commission Decision C(2018) 2466 final of 19 April 2018 on the initiation of proceedings pursuant to Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 ( 1 ) in case AT.40522 — Pandora.

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

1. Infringement of the principle of subsidiarity In the first plea in law the applicants complain that, by the contested decision, the Commission has withdrawn the legal basis from proceedings before the German Federal Cartel Office in the same case, such proceedings having been pending for more than three years to date and having reached the decision stage.

2. Infringement of the principle of proportionality In the second plea in law the applicants allege that the contested decision was neither necessary in order to allow the Commission to carry out the general check that it wished to undertake, nor appropriate, taking into account the interests of both sides, given its disadvantages for the applicants.

3. Insufficient justification In the third plea in law the applicants argue that, contrary to Article 296 TFEU, in the contested decision the Commission listed no reasons as to why it considered that, in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, it was necessary and justified to initiate proceedings.

4. Misuse of powers In the fourth plea in law the applicants allege that the Commission initiated proceedings with the aim of making it possible to impose penalties on the applicants under the system of penalties established in Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. ( 2 )

( 1 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

( 2 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
Case T-378/18: Action brought on 22 June 2018 — NHS v EUIPO — HLC SB Distribution (CRUZADE)

Action brought on 22 June 2018 — NHS v EUIPO — HLC SB Distribution (CRUZADE)

(Case T-378/18)

Parties

Applicant: NHS, Inc. (Santa Cruz, California, United States) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HLC SB Distribution, SL (Irún, 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 word mark CRUZADE — Application for registration No 13 528 112

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2018 in Case R 1217/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject EUTMA 013 528 112 for ‘skateboards and their parts’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission omitted to apply the same reduction to the basic amount of the fine it imposed on Tokin Corporation as the reduction applied to the basic amount it used for the fine imposed on NEC Corporation, and should moreover have applied an average sales value for setting the fine instead of relying on a non-representative sales value of the last year of the identified infringement. These shortcomings would amount to errors in the fine calculation and/or lead to a disproportionate fine (and a lack of reasoning for the first item as it is not set out in the reasoning in the contested decision why the same reduction was apparently not applied to the basic amount used for the fine imposed on NEC Corporation).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 July 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

(Case T-446/18)

(2018/C 311/20)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Application for registration No 4 295 069

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 in Case R 1589/2007-1

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 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(2) of the German Law on trade marks;

— Infringement of Article 8(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(3) of the German Law on trade marks;

— Infringement of 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 10 July 2018 — Geske v EUIPO (SATISFYERMEN)

(Case T-427/18)

(2018/C 301/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: André Geske (Lübbecke, Germany) (represented by: R. Albrecht, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark SATISFYERMEN — Application No 16 886 541

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 in Case R 2603/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission be ordered to proceed to payment of the eligible costs to the applicant as the original beneficiary and the contractual party of the grant agreement No. INEA/CEF/ICT/A2015/1154788, Action 2015-SK-IA-0038 — ‘Slovak Safer Internet Centre IV’, in accordance with the valid and effective grant agreement, concretely article 4.1.3 thereof, based on the fact that the Commission has the competence to deal with issues of project implementation and financial transfers in relation to the valid and effective contract between the Commission and the applicant. — The Commission’s contested decision relies on Article 68 of the Financial regulation, (1) stating that ‘It is necessary to lay down the rules relating to the property inventory and to clarify the respective responsibilities in this field of the accounting officers and authorising officers, as well as the rules applicable to the resale of property entered in the inventory with the view to an efficient asset management.’ In this sense, the applicant underlines that the Commission had several times been informed by the applicant that the Commission’s proceedings against it had been confused with another organisation, which operated in previous projects of a similar character.
Action brought on 2 July 2018 — WP v EUIPO

(Case T-407/18)

(2018/C 319/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WP (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of EUIPO of 6 October 2017 to refuse the second renewal of the applicant’s contract as a Temporary Agent pursuant to Art. 2 f) CEOS (Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the EU); and

— order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs.

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 by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has infringed the principle of legality by infringing the relevant provisions of the SR (Staff Regulations of the Officials of the EU) and CEOS, namely Art. 56 CEOS and 110 SR, and that the contested decision lacks any other legal base.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has infringed the principle of legality, made a manifest error of assessment and breached its duty to have regard for the welfare of staff.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has breached the requirements of Regulation 45/2001 (1), especially of Article 27 sec. 1, sec. 2 (b) of Regulation 45/2001.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has breached the principle of equal treatment.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001, L 8, p. 1)
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 July 2018 — Novartis v EUIPO (SMARTSURFACE)

(Case T-463/18)

(2018/C 352/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Junquera Lara, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SMARTSURFACE — Application for registration No 16 492 076

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2018 in Case R 1765/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare that Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No. 207/2009 do not preclude the sign at issue (Community Trademark No. 16 492 076) in respect of the goods in Class 09 described in the application for registration and;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Second plea in law, alleging that the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation in the application of Article 10(4)(c) of Regulation 2016/1036 were breached.

The applicants claim that Regulation 2018/671 would breach the principle of legal certainty by imputing deemed awareness of the alleged existence of dumping and injury on the part of the applicants and attributing knowledge of a factual situation to them before any legal measure was adopted.

Regulation 2018/671 would also breach the principle of legitimate expectations by developing an interpretation of deemed awareness in Regulation 2018/671 that would have rendered the exceptional character of, and requirements for, the process of registration of imports ineffective.
—

annul the decision of 2 October 2017 refusing to grant him installation allowance when he moved to and took up his duties at EEAS headquarters, and
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 August 2018 — Vafo Praha v EUIPO — Rutzinger-Kurpas (Meatlove)

(Case T-491/18)

(2018/C 352/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vafo Praha s.r.o. (Chrášt’any, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Vojáček, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas (Spigelau, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Meatlove — Application for registration No 15 557 374

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 in Case R 264/2018-4

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 28 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (AUREL BGC)

(Case T-522/18)

(2018/C 392/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BGC Partners LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: P. Walsh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankgirocentralen BGC AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

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 AUREL BGC — Application for registration No 11 092 707

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2194/2014-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the application should be rejected for specific services in classes 35 and 36;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

— alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the concept of ‘selectivity’ referred to in Article 107 TFEU, since the measures taken are selective in nature. This plea in law is divided into three parts: — first part, alleging that the OPCAs are not entitled to discriminate between the various training courses which answer the same need and which have all been recognised by the French State; — second part, alleging that the interventions made by the French State have the effect of deceiving the OPCAs as to the training arrangements which meet the legal requirements and which may be reimbursed; — third part, alleging that the difference in treatment of the two training systems (CACES® and PCE®) is not justified by the nature or general scheme of a reference system.
Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Sensient Colors Europe v Commission

(Case T-556/18)

(2018/C 399/69)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sensient Colors Europe GmbH (Geesthacht, Germany) (represented by: M. Hagenmeyer, D. Zechmeister und W. Berlit, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare as null and void the defendant’s decision of 31 July 2018 (DG Sante/E2/RP/amf(2018)4523972) to classify as invalid the request to place a novel food on the Union market as well as the update of the Union list provided for in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) with document number NF 2018/0355, and end the application procedure; and

— order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, namely infringement of Article 6(1) and 6(5) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2469, (2) and Article 10(1) in conjunction with Article 10(3) and Article 11(1) or in conjunction with Article 12(2) of Regulation 2015/2283.

It submits, inter alia, that the defendant incorrectly assumed that the colouring extract based on dried butterfly pea flowers, on which the application is based, did not fall within the scope of Regulation 2015/2283 and was a food additive within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation No 1333/2008.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001 (OJ 2015, L 327, p. 1).

(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2469 of 20 December 2017 laying down administrative and scientific requirements for applications referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel food (OJ 2017, L 351, p. 64).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 September 2018 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters)

(Case T-560/18)

(2018/C 399/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Atos Medical GmbH (Troisdorf, Germany) (represented by: K. Middelhoff, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb GmbH (Cologne, Germany)

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 1339246-0004

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2018 in Case R 2216/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs,

Should the other party intervene in the proceedings, the applicant further claims that the Court should:

— order the other party to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
—

declare that the claims for recovery in respect of Grant Agreement 2012-3075/001-001 in the amount of EUR 22 454,22 made by letter of the defendant of 8 August 2018 under reference EACEA/A4/RR-am D (2018) 011591 have no basis;
1.

First plea in law, alleging a misuse by the European Commission of its powers to exclude sums from European Union financing — By applying the corrections established by Decision 2018/873, the Commission misused its powers, thereby infringing Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. — The contested decision infringes Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 in so far as the Commission, following discussions held with the Romanian authorities, decided to approve the revision of National Rural Development Programme (NRDP) 2007-2013, expressing its consent with regard to the measures set out in that NRDP, including the methodologies relating to payments concerning sub-measures 1a, 3a, 5a, 3b and 4b in the context of measure 215 — Animal welfare payments. The decision approving the revision of the NRDP is a legal commitment and entails making payments from the EU budget. — The Romanian authorities made payments in accordance with the approval given by the Commission. Against that background, the decision to apply the corrections is unlawful. — Romania considers that the contested decision infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as the Commission’s decision to approve the revision of the NRDP gave rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the Romanian authorities and the beneficiaries with regard to the regularity of the methods of calculation approved by the Commission. That principle requires that, with regard to sub-measures 3a, 5a, 3b and 4b, the Commission apply the corrections as from 19 September 2015, as it did with regard to the corrections concerning sub-measure 1a. — Similarly, Romania considers that that EU institution should also have observed that principle with regard to the payments made after 19 September 2015, given that, at that point, further revision of the NRDP was no longer possible. — Romania considers that the contested decision infringes the principle of legal certainty as a result of the Commission taking a different position with regard to the regularity of the methods of calculation used. Thus, by the contested decision, the Commission found that the payments made according to the methods of calculation which it had previously approved were irregular. Moreover, although the Romanian authorities requested clarification from that EU institution with regard to the possibility of correcting errors regarding compensatory payments, given that the NRDP could not be revised after 19 September 2015, the Commission did not set out its position with regard to that issue.
Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Rodríguez Gómez/Council

(Case T-553/18)

(2018/C 427/116)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

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

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 that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence. — In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 5).