ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 26 September 2019– Nike European Operations Netherlands and Converse Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-648/19)

(2019/C 413/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nike European Operations Netherlands BV (Hilversum, Netherlands) and Converse Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Martens and D. Colgan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul, in its entirety, the contested opening Decision, i.e. the Commission Decision of 10 January 2019 to initiate the formal investigation procedure in case State aid SA.51284 (2018/NN) – Netherlands – Possible State aid in favour of Nike (1); and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU, Article 108(2) TFEU, Articles 1(d), 1(e) and 6(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 (2) laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU, Articles 41(1) and 41(2) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, the principle of good administration and the principle of equal treatment, by erring in law in the preliminary assessment of the aid character of the contested measures.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 107(1), 108(2), 296(2) TFEU, Articles 41(1) and 41(2)(c) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU, by not providing sufficient reasons for finding that the contested measures fulfil all elements of State aid, especially why they should be regarded as selective.

3. Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 296(2) TFEU, Articles 41(1) and 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU, by prematurely opening a formal investigation and providing insufficient reasoning for the existence of State aid where there were no difficulties to continue the preliminary investigation.

(1) OJ 2019, C 226, p.31

(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 2015, L 248, p.9)
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 October 2019 – Frank Recruitment Group Services v EUIPO – Pearson (PEARSON FRANK)

(Case T-735/19)

(2019/C 432/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Frank Recruitment Group Services Ltd (Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Dennis, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pearson plc (London, United Kingdom)

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 PEARSON FRANK – Application for registration No 15 841 851

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 August 2019 in Case R 1884/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

Action brought on 2 December 2019 — Herlyn and Beck v EUIPO — Brillux (B.home)

(Case T-821/19)

(2020/C 27/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicants: Sonja Herlyn (Grünwald, Germany), Christian Beck (Grünwald) (represented by: H. Hofmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brillux GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicants

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU trade mark B.home — Application for registration No 16 961 336

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2019 in Case R 373/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul or amend the contested decision and uphold the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in proceedings B2976549 of 10 December 2018;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— set a date for an oral hearing.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of its procedural rights arising under Article 108(2) TFEU on account of not having been asked — in the context of a formal investigation procedure, which was not initiated in this case — to submit its observations regarding the intention to increase the number of participants in the market-wide capacity mechanism by including in the concept of ‘new capacity’, alongside the new production units for which all building and operating permits have already been issued, new production units which have merely initiated the administrative procedures for the issuing of such permits. — The applicant claims in this regard that the decision is vitiated by a manifest failure to investigate adequately and by a failure to observe the principle of proportionality, in so far as the Commission did not properly assess the effects that those amendments to the scheme as approved in 2018 would have on the activity of the existing installations.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 December 2019 – Man and Machine v EUIPO – Bim Freelance (bim ready)

(Case T-819/19)

(2020/C 27/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Man and Machine Ltd (Thame Oxfordshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Peto, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bim Freelance Corp. (Miami, Florida, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark bim ready – International registration designating the European Union No 1 359 265

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 September 2019 in Case R 317/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 November 2019 – Nutravita v EUIPO – Pegaso (nutravita Healthy Mind, Body & Soul.)

(Case T-814/19)

(2020/C 27/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nutravita Ltd (Maidenhead, United Kingdom) (represented by: H. Dhondt and J. Cassiman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pegaso Srl (Negrar, Italy)

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 nutravita Healthy Mind, Body & Soul. of colours light green and black – Application for registration No 16 255 804

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 September 2019 in Case R 80/2019-4

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 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 10(3) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 71(1)(b) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 71(1) of Regulation of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; and
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental principles of the EU legal order relating to property and the freedom to conduct a business, of Article 6 TEU in conjunction with Articles 6, 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and of Article 11 TFEU. The applicant also alleges misuse of powers. — The applicant claims in this respect that, by unreasonably depriving the applicant’s subsidiary company of the hydrofluorocarbons quotas, which the subsidiary is entitled to be allocated on the basis of its own reference values, the Commission decisions constitute a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights. Where the rules of the implementing regulation are aimed at limiting/precluding the allocation of quotas to new entrants that have not previously operated on the market, the application of those rules on the part of the Commission to the applicant’s subsidiary company (and therefore to the applicant itself) is vitiated by misuse of powers. The defects and grounds referred to also apply where the quotas due to the applicant’s subsidiary company are to be deemed to be allocated to the applicant as a single declarant.
8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that, in determining the amount of the aid to be recovered, losses, reliefs or exemptions which were available to the applicant (whether by way of claim, election, or automatically) at the time when it claimed the Group Financing Exemption, or which would have been available at that time had it not claimed the Group Financing Exemption, should be taken into account even if access to those losses, reliefs or exemptions is now time barred under UK law. The applicant argues that that is the correct interpretation of recital 203 of the contested decision but, insofar as that is not the case, the decision is incorrect because failing to take such losses, reliefs or exemptions into account would lead to over-calculation of the amount of the aid which would introduce a distortion into the internal market.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 December 2019 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Peikert (discount-apotheke.de)

(Case T-844/19)

(2020/C 45/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Apologistics GmbH (Markkleeberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Franz Michael Peikert (Offenbach, Germany)

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 figurative mark discount-apotheke.de in light green, dark green and white — Application for registration No 14 678 007

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2019 in Case R 2309/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and the Opposition Division’s decision of 5 October 2018;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 in so far as the Commission took the view that the action envisaged by the proposed citizens’ initiative could be adopted only on the basis of Article 215 TFEU, whereas that action clearly fell within the common commercial policy;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Bende v EUIPO — Julius-K9 (K-9)

(Case T-878/19)

(2020/C 61/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Gábor Bende (Beloinannisz, Hungary) (represented by: R. Tóth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Julius-K9 Zrt. (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘K-9’ — Application for registration No 12 040 382

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2019 in Case R 560/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(d) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 December 2019 — Alkemie Group v EUIPO — Mann & Schröder (ALKEMIE)

(Case T-859/19)

(2020/C 54/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Alkemie Group (Gdynia, Polska) (represented by: A. Korbela, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mann & Schröder GmbH (Siegelsbach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the EU word mark ‘ALKEMIE’ — Application for registration No 16 417 644

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 in Case R 2230/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Mann & Schröder GmbH to pay the costs.

Plea in law
15.

Fifteenth plea in law, alleging that in establishing the Commission’s jurisdiction and the alleged effect on trade, the Decision commits manifest errors of law, fact and assessment and fails to state adequate reasons.
—

consequently, order the European Investment Bank to pay to the applicant in respect of the abovementioned heads of claim the sum of EUR 143 915,70 in respect of non-material damage and the sum of EUR 1 726 988,40 in respect of material damage or any other amount, even greater, to be assessed ex aequo et bono by the Court or by experts, together with statutory interest from the date of the present application until payment is made in full;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 January 2020 — sprd.net v EUIPO — Shirtlabor (I love)

(Case T-19/20)

(2020/C 68/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: sprd.net AG (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: J. Hellenbrand, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shirtlabor GmbH (Münster, Germany)

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 elements ‘I love’ in black and red — European Union trade mark No 10 023 067

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation procedure

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 October 2019 in Case R 5/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 16(1)(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 97(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 January 2020 — Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas (Frutaria.)

(Case T-12/20)

(2020/C 68/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Markus Schneider (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Bergermann and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas, SL (Zaragoza, Spain)

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: EU figurative mark Frutaria. in green (Pantone 363) — EU trade mark No 5 922 885

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2019 in Case R 284/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as it upholds the registration of EU trade mark No 5 922 885 for the following goods: — Class 29: Dried fruits — Class 31: Fresh fruits and fresh vegetables — Class 35: Export of fresh fruits;

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

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 7 January 2020 — Global Translation Solutions v Parliament

(Case T-7/20)

(2020/C 87/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Global Translation Solutions ltd. (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: C. Mifsud-Bonnici, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 28 October 2019 to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 15 in connection with procurement procedure TRA/EU19/2019 (1);

— in the alternative, annul the defendant’s decision of 5 December 2019 to award Lot 15 in connection with procurement procedure TRA/EU19/2019 to only one single economic operator; and,

— order the defendant to pay costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision of 28 October 2019 to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 15 in connection with procurement procedure TRA/EU19/2019 was unlawful on the basis that it is founded on an erroneous determination of fact, namely, that the file format ‘.doc’ did not satisfy the terms of the procurement documents on the basis that: — that the procurement documents were not drafted in sufficiently clear precise and unequivocal terms; and/or, — that the file format ‘.doc’ is functionally equivalent to the file format ‘.docx’.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision of 28 October 2019 to reject the applicant’s bid submitted for Lot 15 in connection with procurement procedure TRA/EU19/2019 was unlawful on the basis that: — that the defendant’s conduct was in breach of the law inter alia Article 106(3) the Commission Implementing Regulation (2) and contrary to the general principles of Union law, including, public procurement inter alia proportionality; and/or, — that the defendant’s conduct was in breach of the law inter alia Article 96(2) of the Financial Regulation (3) and general principles of Union law, including, sound administration inter alia duty to act with care.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision of 5 December 2019 to award Lot 15 in connection with procurement procedure TRA/EU19/2019 to only one single economic operator on the basis that is contrary to the general principles of Union law, including, public procurement and contrary to the terms of the procurement procedure.

(1) OJ 2019/S 54-123613

(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1)

(3) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1)
1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the competition notice by the Examining Board in so far as the eligibility criteria that it laid down unlawfully restrict the scope of that notice. The applicant claims in that regard that, by adopting eligibility criteria which had the effect of excluding the taking into account of experience similar to that of the applicant, experience nevertheless compatible with the requirements of the competition notice, the Examining Board infringed the latter.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 100 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘the CEOS’). The applicant claims that the application of the retention clause to her case infringes Article 100 of the CEOS, which must be interpreted in a restrictive manner and in accordance with the principle of free movement of workers provided for by Article 45 TFEU. Article 100 of the CEOS must also be interpreted in accordance with Articles 34 and 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and with Articles 12 and 13 of the European Social Charter. In the alternative, the applicant raises an objection of illegality against Article 100 of the CEOS, on the ground that that provision infringes Article 45 TFEU, Articles 34 and 35 of the Charter and Articles 12 and 13 of the European Social Charter.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 February 2020 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ NEW YORK)

(Case T-67/20)

(2020/C 95/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hauz 1929 Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Lyberis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Houzz, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, 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 figurative mark HAUZ NEW YORK — Application for registration No 17 593 807

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 in Case R 886/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings, including those incurred before EUIPO.

Plea in law
—

order financial compensation which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, as the sum of EUR 75 000;