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

Action brought on 6 May 2020 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)

(Case T-262/20)

(2020/C 222/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Suisse) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genova, Italy)

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 ROCHEM — International registration designating the European Union No 1 151 545

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 in Case R 1546/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to render a new decision refusing the declaration of invalidity filed against the International trademark registration No 1 151 545, also for classes 11 and 40;

— order EUIPO and the intervener, should the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal appear before the Court, to pay its own costs and bear the fees and costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 1 May 2020 — Da Silva Carreira v Commission

(Case T-260/20)

(2020/C 215/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: José Da Silva Carreira (Olhos de Água, Portugal) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, avocats)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of 26 July 2019 by which the Commission refused to reassess, for the future, the applicant’s retirement pension;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward a single plea, alleging breach of Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). He claims, inter alia, that the Commission’s refusal to reassess, for the future, his retirement pension is contrary to Article 41 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and to the principle of legality.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 May 2020 — France Agro v EUIPO — Chafay (Choumicha Saveurs)

(Case T-311/20)

(2020/C 240/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: France Agro (Avignon, France) (represented by: C. de Haas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Choumicha Chafay (Casablanca, Morocco)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Choumicha Saveurs in the colours red, orange, yellow, burgundy, gold and white — Application for registration No 13 866 553

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 in Case R 1621/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons and failure to observe the connected principle of equality of the parties in proceedings (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights). — The applicant claims in this regard that the competition selection board gave only very summary reasons for the contested decision rejecting the applicant’s request for review. Indeed, aside from general statements and the indications that it had established selection criteria — without specifying their content — no precise explanation allowing the applicant to understand the reason for the selection board’s decision concerning her was provided. The applicant takes the view that it can therefore be inferred that no review actually took place, in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and of the competition notice itself, which provided for review as a measure of protection for the candidate. — Equally, no reasons were given for the appointing authority’s decision of 20 September 2019, in which once again the further criteria set by the selection board to supplement the competition notice were not explained and no reference to the actual professional experience of the applicant was made, despite the accurate description of her experience provided in her application form. Moreover, the appointing authority did not base its decision on a complete factual and legal context since it took into consideration only the initial decision of 23 May 2019 and failed to make any analysis or assessment in respect of the review.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 May 2020 — Talleres de Escoriaza v EUIPO — Salto Systems (KAAS KEYS AS A SERVICE)

(Case T-294/20)

(2020/C 247/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Talleres de Escoriaza, SA (Irún, Spain) (represented by: T. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Salto Systems, SL (Oiartzun, Spain)

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: European Union word mark KAAS KEYS AS A SERVICE — European Union trade mark No 14 899 439

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 February 2020 in Case R 1363/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the duty to state reasons;

— Infringement of the right to be heard;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology for establishing Hengshi’s cost of production and the SG&A and profit for the calculation of Hengshi’s constructed normal value violates Article 2(5) as well as Articles 2(3), 2(6), 2(11), 2(12) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 June 2020 — Freistaat Bayern v EUIPO (GEWÜRZSOMMELIER)

(Case T-348/20)

(2020/C 247/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Freistaat Bayern (Germany) (represented by: J. Altmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark GEWÜRZSOMMELIER — Application for registration No 18 020 504

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2020 in Case R 2430/2019-2

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;

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

Action brought on 11 May 2020 — MHCS v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (Shades of colour orange)

(Case T-274/20)

(2020/C 247/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MHCS (Épernay, France) (represented by: O. Vrins, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Colour consisting of certain shades of the colour orange) — European Union trade mark No 747 949

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2020 in Case R 2392/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 26(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark and/or of Rule 1(1)(d) in conjunction with Rule 3(2), (3) and (5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995, implementing Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 on the Community trade mark;

— Infringement of the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principles of legal certainty and sound administration (including the duty to state reasons);

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of the President of the EIB of 16 March 2020 confirming the findings of the Conciliation Board and, therefore, the decisions of 8 February and 8 March 2019;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 June 2020 — Smiley Miley v EUIPO — Cyrus Trademarks (MILEY CYRUS)

(Case T-368/20)

(2020/C 255/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Smiley Miley, Inc. (Nashville, Tennessee, United States) (represented by: J. Devaureix, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyrus Trademarks Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands)

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 word mark MILEY CYRUS — Application for registration No 12 807 111

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 in Case R 2520/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— admit the notice of claim, with all documents annexed and the correspondent copies;

— admit all the evidence attached to the writ of notice of claim;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and eventually the intervener to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Plea in law
Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, regarding the inconsistency between the comments and the rating and the failure to take into account all the applicable criteria.

With regard to the claim for non-material damage, the applicant justifies this on the grounds of the creation of feelings of distress, anxiety and injustice as a result of the unlawfulness of the contested report.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 June 2020 — EFFAS v EUIPO — CFA Institute

(CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst)

(Case T-369/20)

(2020/C 255/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Federation of Financial Analysts'Societies (EFFAS) (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. Merico and G. Macías Bonilla, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States)

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 word mark CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst — Application for registration No 14 902 341

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2020 in Case R 1082/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in law by infringing the Union’s duties under the Agreements of the World Trade Organisation on the grounds that the European Commission was obligated under the WTO Safeguards Agreement and Article 22(3) of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to the same sector as that in which the nullification or impairment occurred under the relevant US safeguard measures to the detriment of the applicants’ economic and commercial interests.
—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution;
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care. In that regard, the applicant submits that, in accordance with an EU institution’s duty of care, it is required to inform the official not only of the minimum subsistence figure rule and its effect on the calculation of the pension, but also of the possibility of postponing the transfer of his or her pension rights until the grant of his or her actual pension rights.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 July 2020 — Ultrasun v EUIPO (ULTRASUN)

(Case T-437/20)

(2020/C 279/79)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ultrasun AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ULTRASUN — Application for registration No 17 898 794

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2020 in Case R 1453/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law: the Commission erred in finding that the financing of Femern A/S constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The first plea is divided into four parts. The applicant claims, first, that the Commission erred in law in finding, in paragraphs 190 to 194 of the contested decision, that Femern A/S’ activities do not constitute the exercise of public power. In that regard, the applicant claims: — that the method adopted by the Commission in paragraphs 190 to 194 in order to assess whether Femern A/S’ activities constitute the exercise of public power is contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU; — that, in its assessment of whether Femern A/S’ activities constitute the exercise of public power and for that reason fall outside the scope of EU State aid and competition rules, the Commission erred in law by attaching importance to whether there are private operators whose activities could be considered alternatives to those of Femern A/S and who consider themselves to be in competition with Femern A/S’ activities; and — that the Commission erred in law in finding concretely that Femern A/S’ activities regarding the planning, construction and operation of the coast-to-coast link do not constitute the exercise of public power. The applicant claims, second, that the Commission erred in law in finding, in paragraph 193 of the contested decision, that Femern A/S offers transport services on a market in competition with others. The applicant claims, third, that the Commission erred in law in finding, in paragraphs 192 to 194 and 196 of the contested decision, that Femern A/S is an ‘economic operator’ governed by an ‘economic logic’‘commercially exploiting’ the fixed link. The applicant claims, fourth, that the Commission erred in law in finding, in paragraphs 233 to 240 of the contested decision, that the financing of Femern A/S is liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and the IPCEI Communication, (2) by committing errors of law and manifest errors of assessment by deeming the aid to be compatible with the internal market. This plea is divided into four sub-pleas: — first, the applicant argues that the Commission has erred by finding that the Fixed Link is in the European interest; — second, the Commission has erred by finding that the aid is necessary, as the aid has no incentive effect and does not satisfy the requirements for the counterfactual scenario and the existence of alternative projects set out in the IPCEI Communication. Also, the Commission has erred in the contested decision by relying on an erroneously low IRR, as it calculated it on the basis of a very short lifetime of the project of 40 years, which does not correspond to the true lifetime of the infrastructure, i.e., the period during which Femern A/S will be able to economically exploit the Fixed Link; — third, the Commission has erred by holding that the aid is proportionate, as the aid is unlimited in time. The Commission also committed a number of manifest errors in the funding gap analysis. The Commission has erroneously relied on the above very short lifetime of the project, which has resulted in a higher proportion of costs compared to the revenues from the operation of the Fixed Link; the Commission has underestimated the projected revenues of Femern A/S and overestimated the projected costs by including in particular operating costs in the funding gap calculation. Finally, the Commission erroneously concludes that the aid element consists in the interest rate paid by Femern A/S to the Danish State, whereas, due to the fact that no private operator was willing to invest in the project without significant State aid, the aid element consists of the entire amount of the State loans and the amounts of the loans covered by the State guarantees; — fourth, the Commission has erred by concluding that the aid does not cause an undue distortion of competition, as the aid leads to the creation of a dominant position for Femern A/S in the relevant market, it creates overcapacity, and allows Femern A/S to use below-cost pricing. Finally, the Commission disregarded the fact that the aid is used for downgrading the access to the applicant’s harbour in Germany. The Commission failed to acknowledge that these negative effects outweigh any positive effects created by the aid.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 July 2020 — Sanford v EUIPO — Avery Zweckform (Labels)

(Case T-443/20)

(2020/C 297/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sanford LP (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Avery Zweckform GmbH (Oberlaindern/Valley, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design No 141999-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2020 in Case R 2413/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the appeal of other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal 11 December 2018 against the decision of the Invalidity Division of EUIPO of 25 October 2018;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 6(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the errors in fact and law described in the first two pleas reveal enough difficulties in the Commission’s assessment of this case and the insufficient examination of the relevant facts prior to adopting the decision to warrant a formal investigation procedure. These difficulties are compounded by other, procedural, difficulties presented in this third plea. In the presence of those difficulties, the Commission was required to initiate the formal investigation procedure and has, by refusing to do so, infringed the applicant’s procedural rights deriving from Article 108(2) of TFEU.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 July 2020 — Alteryx v EUIPO — Allocate Software (ALLOCATE)

(Case T-476/20)

(2020/C 313/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alteryx, Inc. (Irvine, California, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter and M. Holah, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allocate Software Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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 ALLOCATE — European Union trade mark No 6 740 658

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2020 in Case R 1709/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the Cancellation Division decision;

— order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant, including those relating to the procedure before the Board of Appeal;

— in the event that the other party participates in the proceedings as intervener, order it to bear his own costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in connection with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v SRB

(Case T-446/20)

(2020/C 304/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Paris, France) and the 25 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul decision SRB/ES/2020/24 on the calculation of the 2020 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;

— pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable: — Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; — Articles 4(2), 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; — Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-444/20, Société générale and Others v SRB.