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

Action brought on 19 February 2021 –Kanyama v Council

(Case T-105/21)

(2021/C 128/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in the annex to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/21, Boshab v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-108/21)

(2021/C 128/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as it continues to include the applicant as entry No 3 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as it continues to include the applicant as entry No 3 in the annex to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-103/21, Boshab v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 March 2021 — Gugler France v EUIPO — Gugler (GUGLER)

(Case T-147/21)

(2021/C 163/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gugler France (Les Auxons, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alexander Gugler (Maxdorf, Germany)

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 figurative mark GUGLER — European Union trade mark No 3 324 902

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2020 in Case R 893/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— cancel the European Union trade mark no3 324 902 on the basis of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94;

— order EUIPO and/or Alexander Gugler to bear the costs involved in the proceedings before the EUIPO and before the General Court by Gugler France.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. — It is argued that the phrase ‘work done for another State’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations should be interpreted as covering all circumstances arising from work done for another State and should not be limited to work done for the official representation of that State, and that neither the law nor the case-law support the Appointing Authority’s restrictive appreciation; — It is further argued that the KSSiP should be considered a central State body and, consequently, work done by the applicant during his delegation to the KSSiP should be considered as work done for the State of Poland; — The applicant argues, furthermore, that the work done by him (1) was subsidiary to the legal relationship between the applicant and the KSSiP; — The applicant argues, in addition, that his main occupation during the reference period was his work for the KSSiP in Poland.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 March 2021 — UGA Nutraceuticals v EUIPO — Vitae Health Innovation (VITADHA)

(Case T-149/21)

(2021/C 182/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UGA Nutraceuticals Srl (Gubbio, Italy) (represented by: M. Riva, J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vitae Health Innovation SL (Montmeló, Spain)

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 mark VITADHA — International registration designating the European Union No 1 352 764

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2021 in Case R 2719/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision by declaring the signs dissimilar and admitting the opposed application to registration;

— order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Lea Nature Services v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO…?)

(Case T-197/21)

(2021/C 217/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lea Nature Services (Périgny, France) (represented by: F. Drageon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal)

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 SO…? — European Union trade mark No 485 078

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2021 in Case R 1234/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs, which they have incurred in the course of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 31 March 2021 — LF v Commission

(Case T-178/21)

(2021/C 206/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: LF (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 20 May 2020 not to grant the applicant an expatriation allowance;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in so far as, during the ten-year reference period, he was based in Belgium exclusively to carry out his duties for the European institutions, while keeping the permanent centre of his interests in France, where he has lived since the age of four, and where his family and in-laws are based.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU since the late 1980s (2). The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. Nevertheless, it is argued that the defendant ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to such pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of France by authorising France to reserve aid to Air France. The applicants also argue that Article 107(3) (b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 April 2021 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO — Schuju (Хозяин)

(Case T-184/21)

(2021/C 242/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peter Schuju (Borchen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Хозяин — EU trade mark No 12 244 679

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2020 in Case R 2729/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity No 19 847 C (EU trade mark No 12 244 679) with an award of costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 14 May 2021 — Basaglia v Commission

(Case T-257/21)

(2021/C 252/43)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Basaglia (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Balossi, F. Fimmanò and G. Borriello, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should order the European Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered by Mr Giorgio Basaglia for the reasons referred to in the application, by way of damages for non-contractual liability, in an amount not lower than EUR 5 013 328,64.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law and a chapter concerning the quantification of the damage suffered.

As regards the non-contractual liability in the present case, the applicant remarks that:

— by its judgment of 23 September 2020 (Case T-727/19, Basaglia v Commission), the Court annulled the decision of the European Commission rejecting the request for access to documents submitted by the applicant;

— that judgment, in particular, confirmed that the Commission’s conduct was unlawful since it had unilaterally restricted the applicant’s right to access the requested documents;

— clear damage resulted from that unlawful conduct in the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant and in the proceedings before the Court of Auditors concerning losses to the public purse — since in all three sets of proceedings it was impossible for the applicant to set out his defence in full; and
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 April 2021 — Cristalfarma v EUIPO — Reinhard Kosch (STILAXX)

(Case T-234/21)

(2021/C 242/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cristalfarma Srl (Milano, Italy) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Reinhard Kosch (Weyregg, Austria)

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 STILAXX — Application for registration No 16 160 152

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2021 in Case R 1339/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener party, Reinhard Kosch, to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the Fifth Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 May 2021 — Bodegas Beronia v EUIPO — Bodegas Carlos Serres (ALEGRA DE BERONIA)

(Case T-298/21)

(2021/C 278/93)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Beronia, SA (La Rioja, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas Carlos Serres, SL (La Rioja)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ALEGRA DE BERONIA — Application for registration No 18 012 451

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2021 in Case R 2013/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as the appeal in Case R 2013/2020-1 was dismissed and registration of EU trade mark No 18 012 451 ALEGRA DE BERONIA (word mark) was refused in respect of all the goods at issue;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

The German aid scheme ‘Bundesregelung Fixkostenhilfe 2020’ (Federal Scheme for Fixed Cost Aid 2020), approved by the defendant, is incompatible with the internal market because it distorts competition, without it being exceptionally justified in the present case. The defendant made a manifest error of assessment in determining that an aid scheme requiring a company-wide decrease in turnover of at least 30 % is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. According to the applicant, the company-wide approach of the aid scheme excludes companies such as the applicant, with several different business areas affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, whose brick-and-mortar business saw a drop in turnover far exceeding 30 % due to closures, from being eligible to apply for that aid only because another business area does not suffer any turnover losses and, by calculating the arithmetical average of the turnover from different business areas, the 30 % threshold is not reached. Those companies would then — by contrast to companies with only one business area — receive no aid and would have to cross-subsidise the uncovered fixed costs of their closed business area from their other business areas. This leads to a distortion of competition, both in relation to competitors in business areas that were affected by Covid-19 and in relation to those in business areas that were not affected by Covid-19.
—

order the European Union, represented by the Commission, to redress the damage sustained by the Applicant because of the Commission’s failure to pay the default interest pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, in compliance with the judgment of 16 December 2015 in Case T-43/11 Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd and Singapore Airlines Limited v Commission, and therefore pay the following amounts, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU, and the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU: — (i) an amount equal to the unpaid default interest, i.e., interest on the sum of EUR 74 800 000, at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, for the period between 11 February 2011 and 8 February 2016, less the amount already paid by the Commission (EUR 1 635 368), which results in an amount of EUR 15 185 410 or, failing that, for the time period and at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate; — (ii) an amount equal to the interest due on the unpaid default interest for the period between 9 February 2016 and 1 February 2021 calculated based on the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, which results in an additional interest amount of EUR 3 407 356 or, failing that, for the time period and at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate; and — (iii) compound interest, i.e., compound interest (‘capitalisation des intérêts’) on the amount of the unpaid default interest and additional interest amount totaling EUR 18 592 766 (or any other amount which the General Court considers appropriate), for the period between 2 February 2021 and the date of actual payment by the Commission of all unpaid interest amounts at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 % or, failing that, for the time period and at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 May 2021 — Domator24.com Paweł Nowak v EUIPO — Siwek and Didyk (Chairs)

(Case T-256/21)

(2021/C 278/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Domator24.com Paweł Nowak (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawliczek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Piotr Siwek (Gdańsk, Poland) and Sebastian Didyk (Gdańsk)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant in the proceedings before the General Court

Design at issue: European Union design No 3 304 021-0001 (chairs)

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2021 in Case R 1275/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union and — pursuant to Article 190(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — any costs necessarily incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

— in the event of intervention in the proceedings by other parties, order those parties to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law relied on

— Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) thereof, through an assumption that the design lacked individual character at the date of filing;

— Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) thereof, through an assumption that the earlier design relied on as evidence in the present case could reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the gaming sector;

— Infringement of the rules relating to the burden of proof;

— Infringement of the principle of free evaluation of evidence;

— Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) and (2) thereof;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 May 2021 — CNH Industrial v EUIPO (SOILXPLORER)

(Case T-300/21)

(2021/C 297/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CNH Industrial NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Axel Karnøe Søndergaard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SOILXPLORER — Application for registration No 18 217 454

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2021 in Case R 386/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety and allow the trade mark to be published for opposition purposes in respect of all the goods applied for, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the EUIPO in order that it may adopt the consequent measures;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by attributing an incorrect meaning to the trade mark applied for and by failing to consider the mark as filed;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by incorrectly assessing the descriptive character of the mark;
Action brought on 25 June 2021 — KTM Fahrrad v EUIPO — KTM (R2R)

(Case T-353/21)

(2021/C 320/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: KTM Fahrrad GmbH (Mattighofen, Austria) (represented by: V. Hoene, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: KTM AG (Mattighofen, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark R2R — European Union trade mark No 17 886 364

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2021 in Case R 261/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul cancellation decision No 22964C of the Cancellation Division of 4 December 2019 and the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 20 April 2021 upholding it, including as regards the costs, and reject the application for cancellation of the respondent [before the Board of Appeal];

— in the alternative, annul cancellation decision No 22964C of the Cancellation Division of 4 December 2019 and the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 20 April 2021 upholding it, including as regards the costs, and reject the application for cancellation of the respondent [before the Board of Appeal], so far as concerns vehicles and vehicle parts, included in Class 12 — namely, land vehicles and vehicle parts for them;

— in the further alternative, annul cancellation decision No 22964C of the Cancellation Division of 4 December 2019 and the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 20 April 2021 upholding it, including as regards the costs, and reject the application for cancellation of the respondent [before the Board of Appeal], so far as concerns vehicles and vehicle parts, included in Class 12, namely, bicycles and two-wheeled vehicles and vehicle parts for them.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;