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

Action brought on 10 September 2021 — Harbaoui v EUIPO — Google (GOOGLE CAR)

(Case T-569/21)

(2021/C 431/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zoubier Harbaoui (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Ciullo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Google LLC (Mountain View, California, 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 GOOGLE CAR — Application for registration No 17 978 453

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2021 in Case R 904/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Google LLC to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

The applicant claims, in that regard, that (i) by the judgment of 23 September 2020 delivered in Basaglia v Commission (T-727/19, not published, EU:T:2020:446), the General Court had directed that the decision adopted by the European Commission unilaterally restricting the request for access to documents submitted by the applicant’s legal representative should be annulled; (ii) in particular, the European Commission’s conduct, whereby it had unilaterally limited that representative’s right to access the documents requested, had been declared to be unlawful; and (iii) the Commission’s new decision, adopted following the annulment of the previous decision, did not comply with the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 and constituted another infringement of the applicant’s right to access.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 16 and 48 of the CEOS in the light of Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, and of Article 59(4) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.
—

In particular, it is argued that Czech Post’s cross-subsidisation constitutes a stand-alone incompatible State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, taking place already at least in the 2013–2017 period (but very likely even before), which the Commission should thus have thoroughly assessed in separate administrative proceedings, and not as an ancillary issue within the proceedings in case SA.55208 (2020/C), limited to the 2018–2022 period. This is supported by the Commission’s previous case law. However, the Commission wrongly concluded that this cross-subsidisation does not constitute State aid at all.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Puma v EUIPO — SMB Swisspour (PUMA)

(Case T-622/21)

(2021/C 471/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SMB Swisspour GmbH (Wildau, Germany)

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 word mark PUMA — Application for registration No 15 740 079

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2021 in Case R 2493/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and refuse the application for the contested mark;

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

Plea in law
Action brought on 18 October 2021 — Civitta Eesti v Commission

(Case T-665/21)

(2021/C 490/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Civitta Eesti AS (Tartu, Estonia) (represented by: C. Ginter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 12 October 2021 (1) to reject the applicant’s tender in the procurement procedure MOVE/2020/OP/0008 ‘Legal, socio-economic and technical assistance in the fields of Energy and Mobility and Transport’, lot 5: ‘socio-economic assistance activities in the field of mobility and transport’;

— annul every consequent, intended or related measure, including even measures as yet unknown taken by the defendant in lot 5 of the aforementioned procurement procedure, and, in particular, annul the tender evaluation reports and any contract entered to with the successful tenderer; and

— order the defendant 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 that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment by rejecting the applicant’s tender and thus infringed Article 168 (6) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046. (2)

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by rejecting the applicant’s tender and not considering the applicant’s explanations regarding the existence and integrity of its technical offer.

(1) As notified to the applicant by the defendant’s letter no Ares (2021) 6214855 of 12 October 2021.

(2) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1-222).
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean of 9 July 2004, and the principle of performance of agreements in good faith. The applicant maintains that Articles 17, 18 and 19 of the EMFAF Regulation run counter to the obligations relating to tackling over-fishing and the conservation of marine resources laid down in those conventions. The Parliament and the Council infringed the principle of performance of agreements in good faith by adopting the contested articles.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules applicable to settlements. The applicants claim in that regard that, by adopting the contested decision requesting the applicants to reinitiate a settlement procedure under certain conditions, the Commission infringed the rules applicable to settlements. The applicable rules do not allow the Commission, on the one hand, to reopen a settlement procedure at that stage of the procedure and, on the other hand, to do so by requiring the applicants to cease all discussions as to the facts alleged against them.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 September 2021 — ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk v EUIPO — ESSAtech (Remote controls [wireless] (Accessories for -))

(Case T-612/21)

(2021/C 502/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk s.c. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: M. Oleksyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ESSAtech (Přistoupim, Czech Republic)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: EU design Remote controls [wireless] (Accessories for -) — EU design No 4 539 302-0003

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2021 in Case R 1072/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to bear their own costs, and order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringements of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) thereof, and breaches of the rule of law established in DOCERAM, C-395/16, (1) as well as infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration);

— Infringements of Article 63(1) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 63(2) thereof, and breaches of the rule of law established in DOCERAM, C-395/16, as well as infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration).

(1) Judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM, C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172.
Action brought on 27 October 2021 — Paraskevaidis v Council and Commission

(Case T-698/21)

(2022/C 2/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Georgios Paraskevaidis (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas and D.-A. Pappa, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 4 February 2021 of the Commission and the instalment plan of 9 March 2021 and the decision of the Council of 19 July 2021, by which the complaint of the applicant against the decision of the Commission was rejected, to the extent it contains additional reasoning; and

— order the defendants to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions infringed the principle of legality. It is also alleged that the Revised Conclusion No 237/05 (1) was not applicable for the period the applicant claimed the educational allowance.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Revised Conclusion No 237/05 was illegally applied retroactively.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Revised Conclusion No 237/05 was adopted by the Heads of Administration beyond their remit.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Revised Conclusion infringes Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

(1) Revised Conclusion No 237/05 on the education allowance within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations approved by the Heads of Administration at their 284th meeting on 1 July 2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 November 2021 — Kaczorowska v EUIPO — Groupe Marcelle (MAESELLE)

(Case T-716/21)

(2022/C 2/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Katarzyna Kaczorowska (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Kurcman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupe Marcelle Inc. (Lachine, Quebec, Canada)

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 MAESELLE– Application for registration No 18 131 833

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2021 in Case R 670/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of Opposition Division dated 15/02/2021 in opposition proceedings No B 3 108 583 with respect to all the goods and services for which the opposition has been upheld;

— refer the case back to EUIPO so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register the trade mark at issue in respect of all the goods and services covered, without prejudice to those which are uncontested;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 November 2021 — Hoteles Olivencia v EUIPO — Corporacion H10 Hotels (HOTELES HO)

(Case T-707/21)

(2022/C 24/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hoteles Olivencia, SL (Almería, Spain) (represented by: S. Mohamed Acosta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Corporacion H10 Hotels, SL (Barcelona, 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 European Union figurative mark HOTELES HO — Application for registration No 18 202 245

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 August 2021 in Case R 782/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision recognising the registration of the trade mark at issue and ordering the opponent of the original trade mark application to pay the costs;

— In the alternative, if the appeal is dismissed, each party should bear its own costs, given the subject matter at issue and its apparent complexity, and given the various changes of approach in the decisions of each instance, circumstances which should be taken into account in relation to the provisions of Article 109(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Pleas in law

— At issue is the application or non-application of Article 8(1)(b) and the effective (or defective) non-application of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Rubnikovich v Council

(Case T-582/21)

(2022/C 11/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Siarhei Rubnikovich (Tarasovo, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.

(1) OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3.

(2) OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 November 2021 — Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien v EUIPO — Cantina San Donaci (Passo Lungo)

(Case T-745/21)

(2022/C 37/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH (Freyburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Schmidt-Hern and A. Lubberger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cantina Sociale Cooperativa San Donaci (San Donaci, Italy)

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 Passo Lungo — Application for registration No 18 082 770

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2021 in Case R 130/2021-4

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 Articles 46(1)(a) and 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 6 December 2021 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — The a2 Milk Company (A2)

(Case T-759/21)

(2022/C 37/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and J. Thomsen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The a2 Milk Company Ltd (Auckland, New Zealand)

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 figurative mark A2 — International registration designating the European Union No 1 438 650

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2021 in Case R 2447/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of the EUIPO of 17 November 2020, and reject opposition no. B 3080425 in its entirety and allow international registration no. WO 1438650 to proceed for designation in the European Union and;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the potential intervener to pay the costs before the EUIPO in the opposition and appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 December 2021 — Trend Glass v EUIPO (ECO STORAGE)

(Case T-777/21)

(2022/C 51/54)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Trend Glass sp. z o.o. (Radom, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark ECO STORAGE — Application No 18 324 347

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2021 in Case R 1315/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety and give final judgment by approving for registration EU trade mark application No 18 324 347;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision and remit the case to EUIPO for further consideration;

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

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 33(2) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as well as Article 42(1) thereof;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 November 2021 — Balaban v EUIPO (Stahlwerkstatt)

(Case T-706/21)

(2022/C 37/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Okan Balaban (Bornheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Schaaf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Stahlwerkstatt’ — Application for registration No 18 219 170

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2021 in Case R 1987/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— change the defendant’s refusal decision of 27 August 2020 and the contested decision and order the defendant to register the trade mark for education and training services in Class 41;

— 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;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 December 2021 — Financiere Batteur v EUIPO — Leno Beauty (by L.e.n.o beauty)

(Case T-779/21)

(2022/C 73/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Financiere Batteur (Hérouville-Saint-Clair, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and F. Donaud, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leno Beauty Sas (Ventimiglia, Italy)

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 by L.e.n.o beauty — Application for registration No 18 083 647

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 October 2021 in Case R 514/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, of the principle of res judicata, of the principle non-retroactivity, abuse of process, infringement of procedural safeguards, of the right to be heard effectively and in accordance with the intended objective of that right. That plea consists of three parts: — first part, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, infringement of the right to be heard, no administrative inquiry, breach of the adversarial principle, breach of the principle of equality of arms and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the right to sound administration and failure to act within a reasonable time; — second part, alleging admission of the failure to observe the procedural aim and abuse of process, failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff and the protection given to informants; — third part, alleging infringement of the principles and rules concerning retroactive effect and legal certainty in relation to retroactive effect, infringement of the principles of impartiality (objective and subjective), willingness to adopt the same decision with the same scope and based on the same grounds instead of compensation for the loss of opportunity to see the procedural rights of the applicant respected in a timely and effective manner.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 December 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-792/21)

(2022/C 84/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the implied decision of the European Commission dated 12 October 2021 in case GESTDEM No 2021/4394 refusing the applicant’s request for access to documents; (1)

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 133 and 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state reasons in breach of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, (2) Article 41(2)(c), of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 296, paragraph 2, TFEU.

(1) Editorial note: the documents in question concern the EU’s legislative initiative regarding sustainable corporate governance.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).