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

Action brought on 24 April 2019 — Target Ventures Group v EUIPO — Target Partners (TARGET VENTURES)

(Case T-274/19)

(2019/C 213/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Target Ventures Group Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: T. Dolde, P. Homann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Target Partners GmbH (Munich, 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: Application for European Union word mark TARGET VENTURES — Application for registration No 13 685 565

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 in Case R 1685/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

The applicants refer to an ample body of evidence ranging from the length of the pre-notification phase and the disproportionate time allocation between that phase and the preliminary examination procedure, other circumstances under which the contested decision was adopted and the alleged flaws reflected in the content of that decision, which, they argue, is insufficiently reasoned and vitiated by serious errors of assessment or the lack of assessment. These factors are said to show that the Commission made an insufficient analysis of the relevant aspects and did not have all the information needed before declaring the State aid and its financing method compatible with the internal market and EU law.
Action brought on 4 May 2019 — Vanhoudt and Others v EIB

(Case T-294/19)

(2019/C 230/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) and nine other applicants (represented by: A. Haines, Barrister)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the EIB’s decision of 31 January 2019 refusing to compensate the applicants for their uncompensated losses and refusing to share the SPAC simulation tool and its results;

— further, or in the alternative, order the EIB to compensate the applicants for the non-material damage flowing from and caused by the EIB’s decision to withhold the SPAC simulation tool and/or its results;

— order the EIB to disclose the SPAC actuarial simulation tool and its results in the form of print-outs of the actuarial simulations in order that the applicants can evaluate their uncompensated loss, and thus, the adequacy — or lack thereof — of the compensatory measures provided to them by the EIB following reforms to their pension and remuneration;

— order the EIB to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law, in so far as their application for annulment is concerned, and on the other grounds indicated below in relation to their request that the Court order production of the said simulation tool and its results.

1. First plea in law, regarding the annulment claim, alleging breach of the paragraphs 9, 10 and 14 to 18 of the Memorandum of Understanding and the accompanying side letter entered into by the EIB and its staff representatives on 18 May 2009.

2. Second plea in law, regarding the annulment claim, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.

3. Third plea in law, regarding the annulment claim, alleging breach of the right to an effective remedy, good administration and transparency.

4. Fourth plea in law, regarding the annulment claim, alleging breach of access to personal data.

In relation to the claim for production of the said simulation tool and its results, the applicants argue, further, as follows.

— The EIB’s failure to disclose the SPAC actuarial simulation tool is in breach of Articles 41, 42 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 15(1) and 15(3) of the TFEU;

— The EIB is infringing the applicants’ rights of access to personal data in breach of Articles 14 and 17 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1)

(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 June 2019 — Conlance v EUIPO — LG Electronics (SONANCE)

(Case T-343/19)

(2019/C 246/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Conlance GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Hayn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark SONANCE — Application for registration No 14 589 907

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2019 in Case R 1085/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 15 May 2018 in Case No B 2 660 572‘Conlance GmbH v LG ELECTRONICS INC.’;

— uphold Opposition Case No B 2 660 572‘Conlance GmbH v LG ELECTRONICS INC.’ for all the contested goods;

— reject the EU trade mark application ‘SONANCE’, No UM 14 589 907;

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

In the event that another party is intervening in support of the defendant:

— order the other party to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Action brought on 23 May 2019 — BU v Commission

(Case T-316/19)

(2019/C 238/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: BU (represented by: E. Bonanni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision issued by the Commission on 2 August 2018;

— order the Commission to pay EUR 21 440;

— order the Commission to pay default interest from 23 January 2017 until payment is made;

— order the Commission to pay damages in the amount of EUR 500 000 or another equitably determined amount;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

In the alternative:

— order the Commission to recognise that the present case falls within the scope of the specific case described in Article 10 of the rules (in force before 2006), and reimburse the sum claimed principally;

Further in the alternative:

— order the Commission to request the opinion of the medical committee in accordance with Articles 20 and 22 of the common rules (post 2006).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case, for whom total and permanent invalidity on account of an occupational disease has already been recognised, disputes the refusal of the appointing authority to apply Article 10 of the Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease in force before 1 January 2006 as regards reimbursement for treatments relating to the closure of an ‘open bite’ which is detrimental to the breathing apparatus used by the applicant who is impaired by an occupational disease.

In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law:

1. First plea in law, alleging that the report of the doctor treating the applicant and the result obtained leave no doubt as to the urgency and necessity of the treatment within the meaning of Article 10 of the rules;

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of good administration on account of the incomplete documentation provided to the expert relied upon by the designated doctor, in accordance with Article 23, and on account of the abnormally unethical conduct of the three doctors who took part at that stage, including refusal to acknowledge basic nasal functions, in particular the protection against infection of the applicant’s impaired breathing apparatus, and consequently refusal to acknowledge the relief provided by the closure of the open bite.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 June 2019 — Palacio Domecq v EUIPO — Domecq Bodega Las Copas (PALACIO DOMECQ 1778)

(Case T-354/19)

(2019/C 255/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Palacio Domecq, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Otero Iglesias, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Domecq Bodega Las Copas, SL (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

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 PALACIO DOMECQ 1778 — Application for registration No 11 499 506

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 March 2019 in Case R 867/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action well-founded and alter the contested decision by granting in its entirety the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO, dismissing in its entirety the cross-appeal brought by the opponent and, consequently, dismissing the intervener’s opposition in its entirety;

— in the alternative, and if appropriate, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO in order for it to adopt a new decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal;

— order the intervener to pay the costs incurred by Palacio Domecq, SL in the opposition proceedings and in the appeal before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and of Article 25(5) of the Delegated Regulation.
—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2017/489 of 21 March 2019 implementing Article 21(5) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya; and
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as the contested resolution grants the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) access to personal information, which is contrary to the right to the protection of private life and the right to the protection of personal data.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 June 2019 — Turk Hava Yollari v EUIPO — Sky (skylife)

(Case T-382/19)

(2019/C 270/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Turk Hava Yollari AO (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

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 word mark skylife — International registration designating the European Union No 898 322

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 April 2019 in Case R 880/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to declare valid the contested international trademark registration No. 898 322 for all the goods and services as registered in classes 39 and 41;

— order EUIPO and the intervener, Sky Limited, to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the Fourth Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 June 2019 — Topcart v EUIPO — Carl International (TC CARL)

(Case T-378/19)

(2019/C 270/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Topcart GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carl International (Limonest, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark TC CARL — Application No 15 048 556

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2019 in Case R 1617/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 July 2019 — Coravin v EUIPO — Cora (CORAVIN)

(Case T-500/19)

(2019/C 288/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Coravin, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cora (Marne-la-Vallée, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark CORAVIN– EU trade mark No 11 363 496

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 April 2019 in Case R 2385/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— by way of correction, dismiss in its entirety the action for a declaration of invalidity brought by the company Cora on 25 November 2014;

— consequently, maintain the mark CORAVIN No 11 363 496 in its entirety as regards the description of the goods covered in Class 21, namely ‘Wine pourers; wine access devices; wine preservation systems; household or kitchen utensils and containers, all for use with wine’;

— order EUIPO 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.
Action brought on 22 July 2019 — Forte v Parliament

(Case T-519/19)

(2019/C 305/76)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mario Forte (Naples, Italy) (represented by: C. Forte and G. Forte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Primarily, annul the contested act;

— Primarily, annul every previous and subsequent preparatory act connected to the contested act which has legal effects in regard to the applicant;

— Order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against European Parliament Decision D (2019) 20777, signed by Mr Sune Hansen, Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for financial and social entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, revising retirement pension rights following the entry into force on 1 January 2019 of Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and ordering recovery of the amounts unduly paid out.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Cases T-345/19, Santini v Parliament; T-347/19, Falqui v Parliament and T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

The applicant claims, in particular, that the reasoning for the contested decision is illogical; that there was no evaluation of the lawfulness of Resolution No 14/2018 in relation to the general EU-law principles of reasonableness, proportionality, certainty, predictability, legitimate expectations and the protection of acquired rights; infringement of Article 6 TEU; infringement of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament; infringement of the Financial Regulation; failure to observe the principles of equality and non-retroactivity of legal rules; and failure to observe the principle of access to protection and justice.
Action brought on 25 July 2019 — Nord Stream 2 v Parlement and Conseil

(Case T-526/19)

(2019/C 305/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nord Stream 2 AG (Zug, Suisse) (represented by: L. Van den Hende, J. Penz, lawyers and M. Schonberg, Solicitor)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the annulment of Directive (EU) 2019/692 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 in its entirety;

— order the defendants to pay the applicant’s costs in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the general EU law principle of equal treatment as the amending Directive leaves the applicant without the prospect of derogation from the application of the rules of Directive 2009/73/EC (1), notwithstanding the sheer magnitude of investment that had already been incurred as at the date of adoption of the amending Directive and even before it was first proposed, whereas all other existing offshore import pipelines are eligible for derogation.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general EU law principle of proportionality as the amending Directive is incapable of achieving its stated objectives and cannot, in any event, make a sufficiently meaningful contribution to those objectives that outweigh the burdens it imposes.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general EU law principle of legal certainty as the amending Directive fails to incorporate appropriate adaptations with respect to the particular situation of the Applicant, but on the contrary, is specifically designed to impact it negatively.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, as the Amending Directive was adopted for a purpose other than those purposes for which the powers used to pass it were conferred.

5. Firth plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements, as the Amending Directive was adopted in breach of requirements imposed under Protocol No 1 to the TEU and TFEU on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union, Protocol No 2 to the TEU and TFEU on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, and the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons as required by Article 296 TFEU.

(1) Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, OJ L 211, 14.8.2009, p. 94–136.
Action brought on 23 August 2019 – Electrolux Home Products v EUIPO – D. Consult (FRIGIDAIRE)

(Case T-583/19)

(2019/C 348/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (Charlotte, North Carolina, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: D. Consult (Wattignies, France)

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 FRIGIDAIRE - European Union trade mark registration No 71 241

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2019 in Case R 166/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 23 November 2017 in Cancellation No 11921 C to revoke the European Union trade mark in relation to clothes dryers, washing machines, dishwashers and ranges;

— maintain the European Union trade mark registered in respect of clothes dryers, washing machines, dishwashers and ranges;

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

Pleas in law

— The Board wrongly applied the law in finding that the use of the European Union trade mark as evidenced by sales of clothes dryers, washing machines, dishwashers and ranges by the applicant to US military bases in Germany and Belgium did not amount to use of the European Union trade mark for the purposes of Article 58 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— The Board wrongly applied Article 58 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take account of the applicant's evidence of use in the form of sales to Johann Fouquet GmbH when considering the totality of the applicant's use of the European Union trade mark in relation to the clothes dryers, washing machines, dishwashers and ranges;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 August 2019 – Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries v EUIPO – Chiesi Farmaceutici (NOSTER)

(Case T-550/19)

(2019/C 337/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nitto Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Kyoto, Japon) (represented by: P. Voutilainen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA (Parma, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant 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 word mark NOSTER – International registration designating the European Union No 1 332 950

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2019 in Case R 2279/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the principle of sound administration.

The applicant also seeks an order requiring the defendant to pay the double dependent child allowance for the period from 1 September 2007 to 31 May 2012 and payment of travel costs incurred on account of the serious illness of the applicant’s daughter from 1 September 2007 to 18 February 2018, the amounts due to be increased by default interest at the rate of the European Central Bank plus two percentage points. Lastly, the applicant seeks compensation for the non-material damage suffered, assessed at EUR 2 000.