ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

The third plea in support of annulment, whereby the applicant challenges the improper recourse to the option provided for by Article 171 of the Financial Regulation. The reasons stated for the cancellation of the procurement procedure reveal both contradictions, in that there is evidence of over-estimation of the needs of the contracting authority, consequently a reasonable probability of reduced final costs for the contract when it is to be performed, and lacunae, in that it is not expressly stated that the tenders of all the participating companies deviated from the budget by exceeding it, which factors looked at objectively suggest that the decision was made for reasons other than those relied on.
Action brought on 26 September 2019 – Dermavita v EUIPO – Allergan Holdings France (JUVEDERM ULTRA)

(Case T-643/19)

(2019/C 383/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Co. Ltd (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan Holdings France (Courbevoie, France)

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 JUVEDERM ULTRA – European Union trade mark No 6 295 638

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 in Joined Cases R 1655/2018-4 and R 1723/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision concerning the dismissal of appeal R 1723/2018-4 and the decision of non-revocation of EUTM No 6 295 638 for the goods in class 5 and;

— order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment at every stage of the action for revocation and appeal proceedings, including the cost of the proceedings before EUIPO and the Court.

Pleas in law

— Erroneous interpretation of the relevant law concerning the assessment of the nature of the goods the trademark has been used for;

— Misinterpretation of some of the evidence in the proceedings concerning the use of the trademark by third parties with the consent of the EUTM proprietor;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 September 2019 — Veronese Design Company v EUIPO — Veronese (VERONESE)

(Case T-608/19)

(2019/C 372/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Veronese Design Company Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: B. Lafont, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Veronese SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark VERONESE — European Union trade mark No 8 831 844

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 June 2019 in Case R 2434/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— find that the application and the annexes thereto are admissible;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 60(1), read in conjunction with Article 8(1) and (2), of Regulation No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 September 2019 – Ace of spades v EUIPO – Krupp and Borrmann (Shape of Champagne prestige bottle)

(Case T-622/19)

(2019/C 399/94)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ace of spades Holdings LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gerhard Ernst Krupp (Munich, Germany) and Elmar Borrmann (Reith, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of Champagne prestige bottle) – Application for registration No 16 255 821

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2019 in Case R 3/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— upheld the present Appeal;

— annul the contested decision, and/or set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Articles 8(1) (b) EUTMR and 8(5) EUTMR and enter a finding to the effect that there does exist likelihood of confusion between the confronted trademarks;

— order the defendant (and intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the tables providing for the competence of the AECE. The applicant submits, inter alia, that his complaint was dealt with by a law firm and that that complaint was therefore not dealt with by the authority authorised to do so. According to the applicant, that transfer of competences to external legal advisers prevented him from being able to exercise his right to lodge a complaint which would be dealt with in the context of the adoption and challenging of administrative decisions, in breach of the principles of legal certainty and transparency.
Action brought on 28 September 2019 — Feralpi v Commission

(Case T-657/19)

(2019/C 399/108)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Feralpi Holding SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, in whole or in part, the Commission’s decision in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— and/or annul, or at least reduce, the fine imposed on the applicant by the Commission’s decision;

— where necessary, declare Article 25(3) to (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to be unlawful and inapplicable;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought against Commission Decision C(2019) 4969 final of 4 July 2019 concerning an infringement of Article 65 of ECSC Treaty — Case AT.37956 — Reinforcing bars, notified on 18 July 2019.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 41, 47 and 51 of the Charter, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the Commission failed to assess the excessive duration of the proceedings before re-adopting, for the third time, the same decision imposing a fine.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 41, 47 and 51 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR and the obligation to state reasons, given that, if it had taken into account the duration of the proceedings and their specific characteristics, it would not have re-adopted, for the third time, the same decision imposing a fine.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter, Article 6 ECHR, the principle of proportionality and the obligation to state reasons, since, for the purposes of exercising its discretion of re-adoption, the Commission failed to strike a proper balance of interests.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 41 of the Charter, the principle of the right of defence, Articles 14 and 27(1) of 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, and Articles 11, 12 and 14 of 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, in that the hearing organised in the proceedings was not capable of remedying the defect established by the Court in the judgment in Case C-85/15 P.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 65 ECSC and failed to observe the principle of the presumption of innocence, in so far as it did not observe the principles governing the burden of proof in order to establish the applicant’s participation in the agreement in the period 1989-1995.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 September 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$)

(Case T-665/19)

(2019/C 399/110)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska, legal counsel, and K. Gajek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark €$ — Application No 13 839 998

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2019 in Case R 1345/2018-1

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 the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

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

Action brought on 30 September 2019 – Hasbro v EUIPO – Kreativni Dogadaji (MONOPOLY)

(Case T-663/19)

(2019/C 413/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hasbro, Inc. (Pawtucket, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: J. Moss, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kreativni Dogadaji d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark MONOPOLY – European Union trade mark No 9 071 961

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2019 in Case R 1849/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

— Failure to properly apply Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), breach of the principle of equal treatment and a manifest error of assessment. The applicants submit that the correction coefficients applied to their remuneration, which are indeed not consistent with those established by the United Nations, did not ensure the equivalence of their purchasing power.
1.

First plea in law, in relation to the rejection of the request for reimbursement of mission costs, alleging manifest error of assessment, violation of the principle of good administration, failure to comply with the principle of proportionality, breach of Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and its derivative provisions as in Annex VII to those Regulations and the Guide to Missions (2008), and irrelevance of the request for the provision of the boarding cards as a pre-condition for the reimbursement of applicant’s mission costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 November 2019 – Body Attack Sports Nutrition v EUIPO – Sakkari (Sakkattack)

(Case T-788/19)

(2020/C 10/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Labesius, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maria Sakkari (Nicosia, Cyprus)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Sakkattack in the colours black, red, yellow and white – Application for registration No 16 603 318

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 August 2019 in Case R 2562/2018-4

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

— Infringement of Article 37(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of the rule of equal treatment and sound administration;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 November 2019 — Agepha Pharma v EUIPO — Apogepha Arzneimittel (AGEPHA)

(Case T-792/19)

(2020/C 10/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Agepha Pharma s. r. o. (Senec, Slovakia) (represented by: D. Göbel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apogepha Arzneimittel GmbH (Dresden, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark AGEPHA — EU trade mark application No 7 007 909

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 August 2019 in Case R 386/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— vary the contested decision and reject the opposition;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal and in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— infringement of Article 42(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;
Action brought on 23 October 2019 – Northgate and Northgate Europe v Commission

(Case T-719/19)

(2020/C 19/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Northgate plc (Darlington, United Kingdom), and Northgate Europe Ltd (Darlington) (represented by: J. Lesar, Solicitor, and K. Beal, QC)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted by the European Commission on 2 April 2019 on the State Aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption (‘GFE’) in so far as it applies to the applicants;

— order the defendant to meet the applicants’ costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission wrongly applied Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in its selection of the reference framework for the analysis of the tax regime. The Commission should have treated the reference framework as the UK’s corporation tax regime, not simply the Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) regime itself.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment by adopting a flawed approach to the analysis of the CFC regime. The Commission at recitals (124) to (126) of the contested decision wrongly treated the provisions of Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 as a form of derogation from a general charge to tax found in Chapter 5 thereof.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU when finding at recitals (127) to (151) of the contested decision that the selectivity criterion was fulfilled in that undertakings in factually and legally comparable positions were treated differently.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the 75 % exemption under section 371ID of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of a tax burden on CFCs meeting the exemptions laid down in the said Chapter 9 as a class would breach the applicants’ freedom of establishment contrary to Article 49 TFEU.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that there was a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in relation to the 75 % exemption and fixed ratio issue.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision fails to comply with the general EU law principle of non-discrimination or equality.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in applying by analogy or placing undue reliance upon the terms of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164, (1) which was not applicable ratione temporis.

(1) Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164, of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market (OJ 2016 L 193, p. 1).
Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in ruling that taxing a UK company on profits of foreign subsidiaries ‘to the extent attributable to domestic assets and activities’ does not pose a restriction to the freedom of establishment and that the contested measure was not needed to ensure compliance with the Treaty freedoms.

In support of its application (in the alternative) for annulment of Article 2 of the contested decision, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:
Action brought on 4 December 2019 — Tazzetti v Commission

(Case T-826/19)

(2020/C 45/70)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tazzetti, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Condinanzi, E. Ferrero and C. Vivani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the contested decisions void, after finding that they are unlawful and, where appropriate, after disapplying Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/661, in particular Article 7 thereof;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks (i) the annulment of Commission Decision (note) ARES (2019) 6048224 of 30 September 2019, addressed to the applicant, of Commission Decision (note) ARES (2019) 6014426 of 27 September 2019, addressed to Tazzetti SpA, Commission Decision (note) ARES (2019) 6024220 of 27 September 2019, addressed to Tazzetti SpA, as well as of subsequent decisions, and, (ii) where necessary, after finding, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, that Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/661 of 25 April 2019 ensuring the smooth functioning of the electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market (OJ 2019 L 112, p. 11), in particular Article 7 thereof, is unlawful, a declaration of inapplicability, and as a result, the annulment of the aforementioned decisions implementing that regulation.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-825/19, Tazzetti v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 November 2019 – Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management v EUIPO – Yiwu Dearbody Cosmetics (BODYSECRETS)

(Case T-810/19)

(2020/C 45/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. (Reynoldsburg, Ohio, United States) (represented by: J. Dickerson, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yiwu Dearbody Cosmetics Co.Ltd (Yiwu City, China)

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 BODYSECRETS – European Union trade mark No 13 921 978

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 in Case R 2422/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— authorize the declaration of invalidity of EU trade mark registration No 13 921 978;

— order the proprietor to pay the costs of the action.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made an error of law, a manifest error of assessment and failed to state reasons in concluding that the Group Financing Exemption amounts to a selective derogation from the reference system and, in particular, that undertakings in receipt of other types of non-trading finance profits are in a comparable legal and factual position to undertakings in receipt of non-trading finance profits from qualifying loans. Indeed, the Commission erred in concluding that non-trading finance profits from upstream loans and moneyboxes do not give rise to significant and materially greater risk of artificial diversion than qualifying loans. Further, the Commission erred by focusing on the legislative technique, rather than the effects, of the Group Financing Exemption.
Official Journal of the European Union

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

(Case T-860/19)

(2020/C 54/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Alkemie Group sp. z o.o. (Gdynia, Poland) (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 General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark ALKEMIE — Application for registration No 16 417 669

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 in Case R 2231/2018-2

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
11.

Eleventh plea in law, alleging that even if (which is denied) the contested measure entailed a State aid scheme, the Commission made an error of law in holding that recovery of the aid would not infringe the fundamental principles of EU law, and in ordering recovery irrespective of whether the establishment of the CFCs and their making of loans to non-resident group companies in fact entailed an exercise of the freedom of establishment or the free movement of capital. Specifically, in the present case, recovery would infringe the applicant’s freedom of establishment under Article 49 TFEU and free movement of capital under Article 63 TFEU. To the extent of such infringement, the recovery order in Article 2 of the contested decision falls to be annulled.