ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
– 1.

With regard to the rights derived from the private law contract: — recategorise his contractual relationship as an employment contract of an indeterminate duration; — hold that there has been an infringement by the defendants of their contractual obligations and, in particular, of giving notice of termination of a contract of an indeterminate duration; In consequence, in compensation for the loss suffered by the abusive use of consecutive fixed-term contracts causing the applicant prolonged uncertainty and the infringement of the obligation to give notice of termination of the contract: — order the defendants to pay the applicant compensation in lieu of notice of EUR 176 601,55 calculated on the basis of his seniority in post in missions created by the European Union; — in the alternative, order the defendants to pay the applicant compensation in lieu of notice of EUR 45 985,15 calculated taking account of the length of his service for the fourth defendant; — hold that the dismissal of the applicant is abusive and, in consequence, order the defendants to pay him compensation assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000; — hold that the defendants did not have the legal end of employment documents prepared and — order them to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 per day of non-payment with effect from the bringing of the present action; — order them to send the applicant the end of employment documents; — order the defendants to pay interest on the abovementioned sums, calculated at the Belgian legal rate.
—

In the course of the administrative procedure before the Commission, the applicants submitted a request to the Commission for a reduction of the fine in light of ‘particular circumstances’ within the meaning of point 37 of the Fining Guidelines. The Commission’s case team did not respond to this request and the Commission did not address it in its decision. The applicants must assume that the Commission’s services have either not assessed its request at all or that they have not shared any such assessment with the advisory committee and the college of commissioners for their review. As a consequence, it cannot be excluded that, had they done so, the fine ultimately imposed on the applicants might have been lower. The Commission has thus infringed the principle of good administration and its duty to state reasons.
6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement by the Commission of the principle of non-discrimination, in that the contested regulation has not taken account of the differences between food supplements and other foodstuffs, by setting the maximum levels of PAHs in line with the type of foodstuff concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/39

Action brought on 15 February 2016 — fleur ami v EUIPO — 8 Seasons Design (Lamps)

(Case T-67/16)

(2016/C 111/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: fleur ami GmbH (Willich, Germany) (represented by: B. Potthoff, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 8 Seasons Design GmbH (Eschweiler, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design ‘Lamps’ — Application No 2 252 213-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2015 in Case R 2164/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— in the alternative arrange a hearing;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/42

Action brought on 21 January 2016 — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v OHIM — Vieta Audio (Vita)

(Case T-35/16)

(2016/C 106/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vieta Audio, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Vita’ — Community trade mark registration No 9 993 361

Procedure before OHIM: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2015 in Case R 2232/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and the other party to pay their own costs and those of the applicant.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/39

Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-128/11 De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-75/16 P)

(2016/C 118/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Uphold the present appeal and, entirely reversing the order under appeal, annul points 1 and 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 1, 7 to 25, 51 to 52, 63 to 76, 80, 84, 87 to 88, 97 to 98 and 101 to 115 of the order itself;

— Consequently, annul all the contested acts and order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs;

— Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-128/11).

The grounds of appeal and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-55/16 P De Nicola v European Investment Bank.

The appellant emphasises, in particular, that the heads of claim seeking annulment of the messages of 4 July and 12 August 2011 and annulment of the decision of 6 September 2011 rejecting the request to launch a conciliation procedure are admissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/34

Action brought on 5 February 2016 — Netguru v EUIPO (NETGURU)

(Case T-54/16)

(2016/C 111/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Netguru sp. z o.o. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: K. Jarosiński, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘NETGURU’ — Application for registration No 12 994 166

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2015 in Case R 144/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside in its entirety the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 18 December 2015 in Case R 144/2015-5;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Breach of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Breach of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

annul decision A(2015)13844 C of the European Parliament of 14 January 2016 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/41

Action brought on 26 February 2016 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v EUIPO — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

(Case T-88/16)

(2016/C 136/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Opko Ireland Global Holdings Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, A. Smith and D. Meale, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ALPHAREN’ — Application for registration No 4 320 297

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2015 in Case R 2387/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Regulation No 216/96 in that two members of the Board who took the original 2014 Board of Appeal decision (and the June 2015 Board of Appeal revocation decision) were also members of the Board that took the contested decision;

— Infringement of Article 50 of the Implementing Regulation by relying upon new evidence not before EUIPO at the first hearing of the opposition;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by failing to impose the burden of proof in the opposition to prove the similarity of the goods in issue upon the opponent;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/29

Action brought on 24 March 2016 — SureID v EUIPO (SUREID)

(Case T-128/16)

(2016/C 175/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SureID, Inc. (Hillsboro, Oregon, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SUREID’ — Application for registration No 13 698 675

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 in Case R 1478/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/19

Action brought on 22 March 2016 — 1. FC Köln v EUIPO (SPÜRBAR ANDERS)

(Case T-126/16)

(2016/C 165/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: 1. FC Köln GmbH & Co. KGaA (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and S. Stier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SPÜRBAR ANDERS’ — Application No 13 468 103

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2016 in Case R 718/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/35

Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)

(Case T-117/16)

(2016/C 191/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spirig Pharma AG (Egerkingen, Suisse)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ERYFOTONA ACTINICA’ — Application for registration No 11 853 116

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2016 in Case R 1387/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, if the case might be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the essential costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal’s decision not to suspend proceedings constitutes a manifest error of assessment, a misuse of powers and an infringement of the Rule 20(7) in connection with the Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Rule 52(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Articles 75, 76(1) and 99(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and breach of the principles of equality before the law, proportionality, legal certainty and sound administration;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/27

Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (BURLINGTON)

(Case T-123/16)

(2016/C 175/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Burlington Fashion GmbH (Schmallenberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: 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 word mark ‘Burlington’ — International registration designating the European Union No 982 020

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 in Case R 1635/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject the contested mark in respect of all of the contested goods;

— order the payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

Pleas in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Sandvik Intellectual Property v EUIPO — Unipapel (ADVEON)

(Case T-115/16)

(2016/C 211/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sandvik Intellectual Property AB (Sandviken, Sweden) (represented by: S. Maaßen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unipapel Industria, Comercio y Servicios, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word in standard characters ‘ADVEON’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 164 374

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2016 in Case R 738/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— modify the contested decision such that the opposition is rejected and the designation of international registration IR 1164374 to the European Union is allowed;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, or;

— order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings;

— stay the proceedings until the European Court of Justice has submitted its decision in the procedure regarding the request for a preliminary ruling from Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 7 December 2015 in the matter Länsförsäkringar AB v A/S Matek (Case C-654/15).

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/26

Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Topera v EUIPO (RHYTHMVIEW)

(Case T-119/16)

(2016/C 200/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Topera, Inc. (Abbott Park, Illinois, United States) (represented by: H. Sheraton, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU mark ‘RHYTHMVIEW’ — Application for registration No 13 374 483

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 in Case R 1368/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and any intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) Regulation No 207/2009.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DUO)

(Case T-182/16)

(2016/C 222/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASTER DUO’ — Application for registration No 11 577 574

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2916/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
—

in the alternative, in the event that an order is not granted in the form of the first and second points, stay these proceedings pursuant to Article 69(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court in force from 1 July 2015 (‘the Rules of Procedure’) until a final decision has been made in the proceedings in accordance with Article 21(1) of Regulation No 2100/94 on the cancellation of plant variety rights for reference variety ‘Royal Braeburn’ (Application No 1998/1082; Plant variety No 11960). That decision is preliminary since, depending on the result, the reference variety will disappear or it will follow that Angers-Beaucouzé was and is unsuitable as a test location (see point 12) and therefore whether a complementary examination was necessary or not;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/23

Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NRJ Group v EUIPO – Sky International (SKY ENERGY)

(Case T-184/16)

(2016/C 232/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: NRJ Group (Boileau, France) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky International AG (Zug, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SKY ENERGY’ – Application for registration No 9 727 322

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2016 in Case R 3137/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Confirm the contested decision insofar as it allows the opposition in respect of the following goods and services: Class 9: Recorded radio programmes; recorded programmes for broadcasting or other transmission on radio; Class 38: Radio broadcasting; transmission and communication services, broadcasting and/or transmission of radio programmes; satellite; DTT, cable, DSL and broadband broadcasting and/or transmission of audio programming; transmission of audio, programming (by any means); provision of access to news, current affairs and sports information; telecommunication of information (including web pages); telecommunication and/or communication and/or broadcast and/or transmission of radio programmes; Class 41: Entertainment services by means of radio, presentation and distribution of radio programmes, provision of news, current affairs and sports information, news, current affairs and educational information services; distribution of radio programmes, provision of radio prorammes;

— annul the contested decision in all its other provisions;

— allow the opposition and reject the contested EU mark application for all the goods and services;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/26

Action brought on 2 March 2016 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission

(Case T-199/16)

(2016/C 232/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH (Penig, Germany) and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (Frohburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/304 of 2 March 2016 entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Heumilch/Haymilk/Latte fieno/Lait de foin/Leche de heno (TSG)).

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. The applicants claim that the defendant did not have regard to their opposition in adopting the implementing regulation at issue, despite that opposition being communicated in time to the competent national authority under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1), which did not then forward the opposition in time to the Commission.

2. Furthermore, the applicants claim that the defendant adopted an implementing regulation before the General Court had given final judgment in the action in Case T-178/15 in Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission, brought in relation to the defendant’s erroneous decision to reject the opposition as not made in time.

3. Lastly, the adoption of the implementing regulation significantly disadvantages the applicants. That regulation infringes EU law that aims to ensure free and fair competition.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) lacked a proper legal basis for the contested measures. First, the conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the contested measures. Amongst other things: (i) the Council’s expressly invoked objectives (consolidating the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine) are merely vague assertions that cannot be legitimately sustained as a valid basis for these measures; (ii) the basis on which the Council seeks to rely lacks any sufficient connection to the proper standard of judicial review required in the present circumstances; and (iii) the imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant in fact supports and legitimises the conduct of the new regime in Ukraine that is itself undermining due process and the rule of law and that is violating, and is prepared systematically to violate, human rights. Second, the conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V TEU. Third, there was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the applicant.