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

Action brought on 30 July 2018 — Audimas v EUIPO — Audi (AUDIMAS)

(Case T-467/18)

(2018/C 341/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Audimas AB (Kaunas, Lithuania) (represented by: G. Domkutė-Lukauskienė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Audi AG (Ingolstadt, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative trade mark AUDIMAS, which is the subject of an international registration designating the European Union — International registration designating the European Union No 1 251 000

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2018 in Case R 2425/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and maintain registration No 1 251 000 of the applicant’s trade mark ‘AUDIMAS’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 of the Nice Classification;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal (if that party should intervene in the present proceedings) to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

First plea in law: (i) breach of the right of collective action and right to information and consultation enshrined in Articles 28 and 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29) and detailed and implemented by the framework agreement of 12 July 1990 between the European Parliament and the trade unions or staff associations of the personnel of the institution, and (ii) infringement of the right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the articles which establish an exception to the requirements of confidentiality and professional secrecy where a request is made in the exercise of the rights of the defence and access to an effective remedy, referred to in Article 88 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014, establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1); Article 84 of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190); and Article 53 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338). — It is claimed in that connection that the contested decision, in which the Appeal Board does not grant full access to the documentation held by the SRB, wrongly applies the exceptions to general access to documents contained in the abovementioned legislation, given that such access is sought in the context of exercising the rights of the defence and the right to access to an effective remedy.
The first plea in law is that the Commission infringed the principle of audi alteram partem.

The applicant claims that the Commission infringed the principle of audi alteram partem, see Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it failed to give to Danske Slagtermestre the opportunity to be heard in relation to the submissions of the opposing party, on the basis of which the Commission made its decision in this case.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 August 2018 — Haba Trading v EUIPO — Vida (vidaXL)

(Case T-503/18)

(2018/C 373/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Haba Trading BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Schneiders and A. Brittner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vida AB (Alvesta, 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 figurative mark vidaXL — Application for registration No 11 603 024

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 in Case R 190/2016-5

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 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error consisting in incorrect legal assessment and manifestly incorrect assessment of the facts. — The European Commission assessed the facts incorrectly in reaching the conclusion that the anti-competitive conduct of which the applicant was accused (as far as the Czech Republic was concerned) had been dealt with by the national economic competition authority in the Czech Republic, and made an incorrect legal assessment of the case to the effect that the conditions for the application of Article 13 of Regulation No 1/2003 were satisfied (as far as the Czech Republic was concerned). — The European Commission did not examine thoroughly all the factual and legal circumstances communicated to it by the applicant, and for that reason assessed the facts incorrectly in reaching the conclusion that the applicant’s written observations did not lead to a different evaluation of the complaint and that the probability that the occurrence of an infringement of Article 101 TFEU would be ascertained appeared to be low, and made an incorrect legal assessment of the case to the effect that the conditions for the application of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 773/2004 were satisfied.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek’s)

(Case T-535/18)

(2018/C 392/47)

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

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Peek’s’ — Application for registration No 3 263 589

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 in Case R 60/2007-1

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 in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the Markengesetz (German Law on Trade Marks; ‘MarkenG’);

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the MarkenG on the basis of a likelihood of confusion;

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(3) of the MarkenG on the basis of an unfair advantage taken of distinctive character or repute or of detriment to distinctive character or repute;
—

declare and adjudge that the individual decision no longer to grant the applicant the reimbursement of the school fees in connection with her child as of the 2017/2018 school year, processed on 14 November 2017 and reflected for the first time in her pay slip for December 2017, is annulled;
—

Declare and order that the individual decision to cease to grant reimbursement of the education costs connected with the applicant’s children as from the 2017/18 school year, put into effect for the first time via the applicant’s salary statement of November 2017, with reasons given in an email of 7 November 2017, is annulled;
2.

Second plea in law, raised in the alternative should that period not be capable of being discounted, alleging the infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, on the ground that it must be found, in any event, that she did not, during the reference period, intend to confer on her presence in Belgium, inextricably linked to her husband’s diplomatic mission, the stable character inherent in the concept of habitual residence.
Action brought on 14 September 2018 — Teeäär v ECB

(Case T-547/18)

(2018/C 427/111)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Raivo Teeäär (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the ECB Executive Board of 27 February 2018 by which the applicant’s application for support for transition to a career outside the ECB was rejected;

— if need be, annul the decision of the Executive Board dated 3 July 2018 rejecting the special appeal directed by the applicant against the decision of the Executive Board of 27 February 2018;

— grant the applicant compensation for the material prejudice he allegedly suffered consisting in the career transition support financial package, estimated at EUR 101 447, increased by late interest calculated at the main refinancing rate of the European Central Bank plus 3 percentage points per annum;

— order the defendant to pay all the 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 the illegality of Article 2.3.1 of the ECB Staff Rules, in that this rule is said to infringe the principle of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality; the contested decision is, moreover, flawed by a manifest error of appreciation.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of Article 2.3.1 of the Staff Rules in that this rule is said to discriminate based on age and thus contravene Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78. (1)

3. Third plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, that the contested decision is illegal due to a manifest error of assessment and a violation of the duty of care.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, the infringement of Article 2.3.1 of the Staff Rules.

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16)
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v ECB

(Case T-577/18)

(2018/C 436/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (Montrouge, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, Decision ECB-SSM-2018-FRCAG-76 adopted by the ECB on 16 July 2018;

— order the ECB 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 to those relied on in Case T-576/18, Crédit agricole v ECB.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 October 2018 — Wewi Mobile v EUIPO (Fi Network)

(Case T-601/18)

(2018/C 427/134)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Wewi Mobile, SL (Villena, Spain) (represented by: J. C. Erdozain López, L. Montoya Terán and J. Galán López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Fi Network — Application for registration No 16 026 601

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 1462/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, save for the granting of the trade mark in respect of ‘magnets, magnetizers, demagnetizers’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 22 October 2018 — Rose Gesellschaft v EUIPO — Iviton (TON JONES)

(Case T-633/18)

(2018/C 455/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Rose Gesellschaft mbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. Kornfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Iviton s. r. o. (Prešov, Slovakia)

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: EU word mark ‘TON JONES’ — Application for registration No 15 109 614

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 2136/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to continue the opposition proceedings without applying the ground for dismissal used previously;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— in any event, not award the trade mark applicant any costs in respect of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 October 2018 — mobile.de v EUIPO (Representation of a car in a speech bubble)

(Case T-629/18)

(2018/C 445/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: mobile.de GmbH (Dreilinden, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of a car in a speech bubble) — Application No 15 598 931

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 August 2018 in Case R 2653/2017-4

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 49(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

— Infringement of the fourth sentence of Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 23(1)(d) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;
Action brought on 15 October 2018 — EN (1) v Commission

(Case T-622/18)

(2019/C 4/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EN (2) (represented by: E. Metodieva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 12 December 2017 of the selection board of Open Competition EPSO/AD/323/16 — Investigators (AD 7) for the following profiles: 1. Investigators: EU expenditure, anti-corruption; 2. Investigators: Customs and trade, tobacco and counterfeit goods, not to include the applicant’s name in the reserve list for the first profile of the said competition;

— set aside in its entirety EPSO’s decision of 10 July 2018 to reject the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations regarding the decision of the EPSO selection board not to include him on the reserve list;

— order the defendant to pay damages to the applicant in the form of lost benefits as a result of his non-inclusion in the said reserve list;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant the expenses for legal assistance and legal representation before and during the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging inadequate behaviour on the part of one of the members of the selection board, allegedly resulting in a failure to examine the applicant properly.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the lack of impartiality of one of the members of the selection board for the competition in question.

3. Third plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the assessors.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the competition in question violated the language regime.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that certain irregularities affected the case study in the competition in question.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal and fair treatment said to result from the allegedly excessive period of one month over which the competition in question was carried out.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging an insufficient statement of reasons in respect of the applicant’s assessment.

(1) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(2) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 November 2018 — Aldi v EUIPO — Titlbach (ALTISPORT)

(Case T-697/18)

(2019/C 25/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and M. Minkner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aleš Titlbach (Meziboří, Czech Republic)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ALTISPORT — International registration designating the European Union No 1 226 617

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2018 in Case R 2683/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU (in conjunction with Article 108(3) TFEU) The applicant claims that the contested letter infringes Article 107(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 108(3) TFEU, because — on the assumption that it is intended to be binding —, it exempts a national indemnification law from the obligation to notify State aid, despite the fact that one of the applicant’s competitors, which, according to a judgment of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court, Germany), had no right to indemnification, was selected to be supported by State funds on the basis of that legislation.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 October 2018 — Armani v EUIPO — Asunción (GIORGIO ARMANI le Sac 11)

(Case T-653/18)

(2019/C 25/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Armani SpA (Milano, Italy) (represented by: S. Martínez-Almeida y Alejos-Pita, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Felipe Domingo Asunción (Madrid, Spain)

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 GIORGIO ARMANI le Sac 11 — Application for registration No 13 826 623

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 August 2018 in Case R 2462/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision so as to hold that the appeal brought by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal is well founded and, consequently, that the opposition is to be rejected and the EUTM Application to be admitted; or, alternatively, annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and if the case might be, the intervener, to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of appeal incurred within the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the procedural rules applicable to proceedings before EUIPO and in particular of Article 94 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;
Action brought on 3 December 2018 — Umweltinstitut München v Commission

(Case T-712/18)

(2019/C 44/103)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Umweltinstitut München — Verein zur Erforschung und Verminderung der Umweltbelastung eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. John, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s negative decision of 2 October 2018 (C(2018) 6539 final).

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission’s negative decision of 2 October 2018 definitively refusing the applicant access to the documents pertaining to the first meeting of the CETA Joint Committee, which took place on 26 and 27 March 2018.

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

Infringement of Article 15(3) TFEU in conjunction with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) since the defendant was not entitled, pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001, to refuse (partial) access to the requested documents.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
—

in the alternative, annul the defendant’s Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 relating to Ref. C(2018) 3166 insofar as it orders that, in respect of the years 2012 and 2013, baseload consumers with at least 7 000 hours of full use per year repay more than 20 % of published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 hours of full use per year repay more than 15 % of published network charges and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 hours of full use per year repay more than 10 % of published network charges;