ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Harrington Padrón/Council

(Case T-550/18)

(2018/C 427/113)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

— order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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 that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence. — In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 5).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 October 2018 — Essity Hygiene and Health/EUIPO (Representation of a leaf)

(Case T-607/18)

(2018/C 436/86)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Essity Hygiene and Health AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: U. Wennermark, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of an EU figurative mark of a representation of a leaf — Application for registration No 16 709 305

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2018 in Case R 21962017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims principally that the Court should:

1. annul the contested decision in its entirety, and (a) confirm that the mark applied for has the required distinctiveness as an EU trade mark in respect of all the goods refused in Classes 3 and 16 (b) annul the contested decision as regards the goods in Class 21 refused by the Board of Appeal (c) refer the case back before the Board of Appeal for examination as regards ‘wiping cloths for cleaning; rags for cleaning’;

2. order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of the action before both the General Court and EUIPO.

In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the contested decision as regards the goods in Class 21 refused by the Board of Appeal

2. refer the case back before the Board of Appeal as regards ‘wiping cloths for cleaning; rags for cleaning’

3. order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs before the General Court.

In the further alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the contested decision as regards the goods in Class 21 refused by the Board of Appeal

2. refer the case back before the Board of Appeal as regards ‘wiping cloths for cleaning; rags for cleaning’

3. order EUIPO to pay that part of the applicant’s costs which the Court considers appropriate.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 16 July 2018, imposing on the applicant an administrative penalty for continued breach of the common equity requirements provided for in Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1) (‘the contested decision’), is ultra vires. In that regard, the applicant argues as follows: — principally, it claims that the ECB erred in law in its interpretation of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, which does not require establishments to obtain prior authorisation from the ECB in order to classify ordinary shares as Tier 1 capital; — in the alternative, should the Court consider that classification of ordinary shares as Tier 1 capital without prior authorisation from the ECB constitutes a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, the applicant claims not to have committed any intentional or negligent breach in applying that provision and that the contested decision infringes the principle of legal certainty; — in the further alternative, should the Court consider that a breach can be established and the applicant penalised, the applicant claims that, in the light of the lack of seriousness of the alleged breach and the cooperation of the applicant, the contested decision infringes the principle of proportionality.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 November 2018 — Jareš Procházková and Jareš v EUIPO — Elton Hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)

(Case T-656/18)

(2019/C 4/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicants: Hana Jareš Procházková a Antonín Jareš (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elton Hodinářská a.s. (Nové Město nad Metují, Czech Republic)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade marks at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949 — European Union trade mark No 3 531 662

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2018 in Case R 1159/2017-4

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 60(2), Article 60(3), Article 64(5) and Article 70(2) of Regulation 2017/1001;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging (i) infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights to good administration and access to documents (Article 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article 15 of the TFEU; Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1)) and of the horizontal principle of transparency, in that the applicant’s access to the disputed questions of the verbal reasoning multiple-choice computer-based tests was denied by the appointing authority by claiming that the applicant’s allegation challenging the relevance and validity of the said questions was too general but without grounding the specific motives of not meeting the case-law conditions for not granting them; and (ii) infringement of the applicant’s right of defence, in that the request of the appointing authority that the disputed questions be challenged in more detail is impracticable for the applicant, creating a particular vulnerability in terms of having to provide an impossible proof.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 October 2018 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes Atopiderm)

(Case T-644/18)

(2019/C 4/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Faes Farma, SA (Lamiaco-Leioa, Spain)

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 word mark DermoFaes Atopiderm — Application for registration No 15 069 438

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2018 in Case R 1305/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the opposition and reject the contested application;

— order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 November 2018 — Conte v EUIPO (CANNABIS STORE AMSTERDAM)

(Case T-683/18)

(2019/C 25/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Santa Conte (Naples, Italy) (represented by: D. Demichelis, E. Ortaglio and G. Iorio Fiorelli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark CANNABIS STORE AMSTERDAM in the colours black, olive green, light green and white — Application for registration No 16 176 968

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 August 2018 in Case R 2181/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present action, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the examiner and before the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71(1), read in conjunction with Article 95(1), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Lack of assessment of a fact relevant to registration of the contested mark;

— Lack of impartiality and care in the assessment of the meaning of the contested mark and of the perception of that mark on the part of the relevant public;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(f), read in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Misidentification of the relevant public and of the perception of the contested mark;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 November 2018 — Neoperl v EUIPO (Representation of four filled-in holes in a regular hole pattern)

(Case T-669/18)

(2019/C 25/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Neoperl AG (Reinach, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Börjes-Pestalozza, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: Application for an EU position mark (Representation of four filled-in holes in a regular hole pattern) — Application No 16 259 665

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2018 in Case R 2059/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Commission Decision C(2002/601) of 4 March 2002 on the reinforced Mediation Service, in that Article 6(3) provides that the President of the Commission is to appoint the deputy mediators on a proposal by the Mediator, but does not provide for a pre-selection procedure or for the drawing-up of a list of selected candidates. However, in the present case, the consultative committee for appointments organised a pre-selection procedure and submitted to the Mediator the three applications which it had selected. According to the applicant, it follows that the Mediator did not examine all the applications and therefore infringed the provision referred to above when he proposed that the President of the Commission appoint the selected candidate.
Official Journal of the European Union

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

(Case T-654/18)

(2019/C 25/57)

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 le Sac 11 — Application for registration No 13 612 593

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 August 2018 in Case R 2464/2017-4

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;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 December 2018 — The Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there)

(Case T-716/18)

(2019/C 44/105)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: The Logistical Approach BV (Uden, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Milchior and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Idea Groupe (Montoir de Bretagne, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark ‘Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there’ in black, white and blue — Application for registration No 14 567 201

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September in Case R 2062/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— order the company Idea Groupe to pay the costs occasioned by its intervention, should it decide to intervene.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Glimarpol v EUIPO — Metar (Pneumatic power tools)

(Case T-748/18)

(2019/C 72/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Glimarpol sp. z o.o. (Bytom, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Metar sp. z o.o. (Gliwice, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: European Union design 2 125 435-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2018 in Case R 1615/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

— alter the contested decision by stating that there are no grounds for declaring Registered Community design No 002125435-001 as invalid;

— award the costs in the applicant’s favour.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Action brought on 10 December 2018 — AMVAC Netherlands v EFSA

(Case T-720/18)

(2019/C 65/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AMVAC Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu, M. Grunchard and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the EFSA decision of 1 October 2018, notified to the applicant on 2 October 2018, on the assessment of the confidentiality claims made in relation to the application for renewal of the approval process for Ethoprophos as an active substance;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging ultra vires — The applicant submits that the documents to be published as a result of the contested decision should be published in sanitised form only because the defendant has undertaken an activity (proposal of a classification of substance) which is expressly outside its remit of powers.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the breach of fundamental principles of EU law — The applicant submits that the contested decision results from a procedure during which its rights of defence have not been respected.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 63 of Regulation 1107/2009 (1) — The applicant submits that part of the documents to be published as a result of the contested decision contains information that results from a flawed and partial assessment, and their publication would undermine the commercial interests of the applicant.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1)
1.

First plea in law, disputing the content of her career development reports (CDRs) as a basis of the promotion exercise at issue and alleging irregularity of the closed promotion procedure in question, impossibility and illegality of a posteriori regularisation after the closure of the promotion exercise. — The applicant complains that it was impossible to demonstrate that the value judgments could have been differently realised, if the irregular mid-term report had not been taken into account at different stages of the promotion procedure. — The applicant invokes an error of law and the irregularity of the contested promotion procedure: the violation of the terms of Commission Decision C(2013) 8968 final of 16 December 2013 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the violation of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the absence of actual comparison of the merits. — The applicant further invokes a manifest error of assessment in applying the promotion criteria provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and of good administration.

In the first place, the applicant claims that the Parliament has infringed the principle of equal treatment in his regard by treating him differently from other Members of Parliament in comparable situations and that the Parliament has therefore also infringed the principle of good administration under which the competent institution is required to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of each individual case.

In the second place, the applicant claims that there is a body of evidence supporting the conclusion that there is a clear case of fumus persecutionis against him.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)

(Case T-21/19)

(2019/C 82/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pablosky, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: docPrice GmbH (Koblenz, 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 word mark mediFLEX easystep — Application for registration No 15 730 898

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 in Case R 76/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— reverse the contested decision;

— reject the EUTM No 15 730 898 in its entirety as regards products included in classes 10 and 25;

— award the costs to the applicant.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the State loans to Femern A/S and A/S Femern Landanlæg have been authorised in the Construction Decision and that the ones granted to A/S Femern Landanlæg do not constitute aid, while those granted to Femern A/S are compatible with the internal market.
1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS) as well as of Article 30 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and of Article 3 of the FRA’s Executive Board Decision No 2016/01 laying down general implementing provisions regarding Article 54 of the CEOS.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 January 2019 — Amigüitos pets & life v EUIPO – Société des produits Nestlé (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect)

(Case T-40/19)

(2019/C 93/98)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Amigüitos pets & life, SA (Lorca, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

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 THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect in colours white, red and black — Application for registration No 15 385 719

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2018 in Case R 272/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far the contested decision accepted the opposition against EUTM application No 15 385 719 for goods in classes 5 and 31;

— order EUIPO to confirm the registration of EUTM application No 15 385 719 for all goods for which the said trademark seeks protection;

— order the intervener and, in which it may apply, the defendant, to bear the costs of the proceedings followed before the EUIPO and the General Court.

Pleas in law

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