ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not act with due care and attention in the adoption of the contested decision, since before the adoption of the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence he had adduced, which supports his case, and it primarily based its decision on information provided by the Ukrainian institutions and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigations in the Ukraine.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, failure to discharge the burden of proof, breach of the listing criteria set forth in Article 1(1)(a) and (e) and 2(1)(a) and (g) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 and in Article 3(1)(a), and (g) of the Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014, both concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Groz-Beckert v EUIPO (Position mark consisting of the colours white, medium red and dark green on cuboid packaging)

(Case T-276/22)

(2022/C 257/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Groz-Beckert KG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: M. Nielen and U. Kaufmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the position mark consisting of the colours white, medium red and dark green on cuboid packaging — Application No 18 243 039

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2022 in Case R 1447/2021-5

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 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Second plea in law, alleging a sufficiently serious breach of the principles of due diligence, sound administration, the duty to state reasons and the principle of non-discrimination and prohibition of arbitrariness in the decision-making process.

In that regard, it is stated that the conditions to put the BPE in resolution were not satisfied, that a fair, prudent and realistic independent valuation was not guaranteed and the resolution measure is discriminatory and arbitrary.
Action brought on 16 May 2022 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-268/22)

(2022/C 284/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogen Netherlands BV (Badhoevedorp, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 13 May 2022 (C(2022)3251(final)) amending the marketing authorisation granted by decision C(2014)601(final) for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a failure to observe the system of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) in relation to the rules on regulatory data protection, including Article 6(1) of that Directive, and the obligations of generic applicants under Article 10(1) of that Directive.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a failure to recognise the consequences of the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of 11 November 2021 for the question whether the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Fumaderm was capable of commencing a global marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Tecfidera in accordance with Article 6(1), second subparagraph, of Directive 2001/83/EC.

(1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001, L 311, p. 67).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 May 2022 — Ecoalf Recycled Fabrics v EUIPO (BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLANET B)

(Case T-324/22)

(2022/C 284/71)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ecoalf Recycled Fabrics, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Gómez Sánchez and J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLANET B — Application for registration No 18 354 287

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2022 in Case R 1925/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and order the continuation of the processing of EU trademark No 18 354 287 BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLANET B applied for in order to distinguish goods in Classes 3, 16, 18 and 21; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs of the appeal before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 June 2022 — Deutsche Bank v EUIPO — Operación y Auditoria (avanza Tu negocio)

(Case T-341/22)

(2022/C 294/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Bank, SA Española (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, J. Rodriguez Fuensalida, P. Ramells Higueras and A. Figuerola Moure, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Operación y Auditoria, SA de CV, SOFOM, ENR (Mexico City, Mexico)

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: Application for EU figurative mark avanza Tu negocio — Application for registration No 18 208 813

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2022 in Case R 1808/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council was erroneously applied in the contested decision;

— reject the protection in respect of all services sought in the application for registration of EU trade mark No 18 208 813 avanza Tu negocio (figurative) in Class 36; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the representation costs, incurred by the applicant.

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 5 July 2022 — Dexia Crédit Local v SRB

(Case T-411/22)

(2022/C 311/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Dexia Crédit Local (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J.-M. Gollier, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, reference SRB/ES/2022/18;

— order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 69(2) of Regulation No 806/2014 (1) in so far as it sets the target level for 2022 at one-eighth of 1,6 % of covered deposits in the Member States participating in the SRF.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that Delegated Regulation 2015/63 (2) is unlawful: — on the ground that it infringes the principle of proportionality in so far as the calculation of the ex-ante contributions to the SRF, first, is not consistent with the objectives pursued by Regulation No 806/2014, second, does not take into account the fact that the applicant is a credit institution in run-off management which is covered by a State guarantee and in respect of which the SRF will theoretically never be called upon and, third, makes its orderly resolution more expensive; — on the ground that it infringes the principle of equal treatment in so far as it treats institutions in run-off management under State guarantee and operative institutions in the same way.

3. Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the SRB infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment for the same reasons as those stated in the second plea in law, in so far as the SRB failed to respect those principles by applying to the applicant, without any adjustment, the provisions of Delegated Regulation 2015/63.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of legal basis for Articles 5, 69 and 70 of Regulation No 806/2014 in so far as they were adopted on the basis of Article 114 TFEU even though they do not concern approximation of laws.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging lack of legal basis for Articles 5, 69 and 70 of Regulation No 806/2014 in so far as they were adopted on the basis of Article 114 TFEU despite the fact that they are fiscal provisions.

(1) 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 255, p. 1).

(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59 with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 June 2022 — Shulgin v Council

(Case T-364/22)

(2022/C 303/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Shulgin (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, F. Bélot, A. Guillerme and L. Burguin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision 2022/582/CFSP of 8 April 2022, (1) in so far as it includes the applicant’s name at No 911 of the annex to that decision;

— annul the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, (2) in so far as it includes the applicant’s name at No 911 of Annex I to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and of the obligation to give reasons.

2. Second plea, alleging manifest error of assessment as regards the grounds given by the Council.

3. Third plea, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and infringement of fundamental rights.

4. Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 55).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 3).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 July 2022 — Pascoe pharmazeutische Präparate v EUIPO — Novartis Pharma (PASCELMO)

(Case T-435/22)

(2022/C 326/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pascoe pharmazeutische Präparate GmbH (Gießen, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and S. Clotten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis Pharma AG (Basel, Switzerland)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark PASCELMO — International registration designating the European Union No 1 516 387

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2022 in Case R 1890/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of 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 12 July 2022 — Machková v EUIPO — Aceites Almenara (ALMARA SOAP)

(Case T-436/22)

(2022/C 340/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Veronika Machková (Šestajovice, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Balcar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aceites Almenara, SL (Puebla de Almenara, 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 ALMARA SOAP — Application for registration No 18 198 833

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2022 in Case R 1613/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— reject the contested decision for all the contested goods;

— in the alternative, return the case to EUIPO for a new assessment;

— order that the European Union trade mark application No 18 198 833 is recorded in the Register in accordance with the provisions of Article 51, paragraph 1 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— order Aceites Almenara, SL to bear the costs of the opposition, fixed at EUR 620;

— order Aceites Almenara to bear the costs of the appeal, fixed at EUR 720;

— order Aceites Almenara to bear the costs of this action.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 10(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 July 2022 — Oatly v EUIPO — D’s Naturals (Wow no cow!)

(Case T-429/22)

(2022/C 326/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Oatly AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: D’s Naturals LLC (Cincinnati, Ohio, United States)

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 Wow no cow! — European Union trade mark No 12 862 331

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2022 in Case R 1539/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the intervener’s application for invalidity and consequently allow the European Union trade mark registration No 12 862 331 Wow no cow! to remain registered for all goods;

— order EUIPO to reimburse the costs of the applicant in this appeal and account for its own costs.

Pleas in law

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2.3, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.6 of Annex X to the administrative provisions, infringement of Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 2.3, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.6 of the administrative provisions, manifest error of assessment, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and misuse of rights.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 August 2022 — Panicongelados-Massas Congeladas v EUIPO — Seder (panidor)

(Case T-480/22)

(2022/C 359/115)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Panicongelados-Massas Congeladas, SA (Leiria, Portugal) (represented by: I. Monteiro Alves, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seder Establishment ltd. (Mriehel Birkirkara, Malta)

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 panidor — Application for registration No 18 214 675

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 May 2022 in Case R 1946/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— remit the trademark application to EUIPO for registration to proceed; and

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

Plea in law
—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in any event in so far as it concerns the applicant; and
Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-468/22)

(2022/C 359/110)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic the order:

— for payment of all sums due to the applicant under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Electricity Transmission Project Loan Agreement, nr. 20868 (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 9 August 2017 further to its right of subrogation comprising: — CHF 1 984 763,43 and EUR 22 856 655,23, the amount due to the applicant as at 30 June 2022, which is all principal of CHF 1 716 822,98 and EUR 18 655 393,62, interest of CHF 51 915,64 and EUR 1 040 629,74 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of CHF 216 024,81 and EUR 3 160 631,87. — further contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the aggregate of (i) 2,5 % (250 basis points) and (ii) the rate payable under Article 3.01, until payment is made.

— for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic has breached its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, since 9 August 2017 and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to the applicant (subrogated to the European Investment Bank’s claims).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 August 2022 — Vitromed v EUIPO — Vitromed Healthcare (VITROMED Germany)

(Case T-514/22)

(2022/C 380/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Vitromed GmbH (Jena, Germany) (represented by: M. Linß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vitromed Healthcare (Jaipur, India)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark VITROMED Germany — Application No 18 209 244

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2022 in Case R 1670/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition in its entirety;

— order the opponent to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed Article 52 of Regulation 1306/2013 (2) and Articles 28-29 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (3) owing to the Commission having erred in its assessment when it found that there were systemic deficiencies in the implementation of cross-checks, which affects the quality of LPIS updates, which is considered to constitute a weakness in the key controls. That is the case because, (1), the quality of the update of the LPIS can only be assessed in relation to the land parcel database as a whole, (2), the Commission’s choice of land parcels for investigation was too limited to be able to demonstrate a systemic deficiency, and, (3), the Commission’s finding as to the number of deficient land parcels and the error rate — which was apparently the basis for the Commission’s assessment that there is a systemic deficiency in the LPIS update — is not correct.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 August 2022 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO — Schmitzer (HPU AND YOU)

(Case T-511/22)

(2022/C 389/19)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. (Dębica, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sonja Schmitzer (Teltow, Germany)

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 HPU AND YOU — Application for registration No 18 174 721

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2022 in Case R 1888/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and refer the case back to EUIPO for reconsideration, or,

— alter the contested decision, stating that there are relative grounds for the refusal of registration of trade mark application No 18 174 721 for all goods and services in class 5, 35 and 44 and that the trade mark shall not be registered;

— award the costs in the applicant’s favour.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of the principle of trademarks similarity assessment;