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

Action brought on 5 June 2020 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA)

(Case T-355/20)

(2020/C 255/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (Bielsko-Biała, Poland)

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 figurative Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA — European Union trade mark No 15 371 305

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 in Case R 1974/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Cole Haan v EUIPO — Samsøe & Samsøe (Ø)

(Case T-399/20)

(2020/C 271/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cole Haan LLC (Greenland, New Hampshire, United States) (represented by: G. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Samsøe & Samsøe Holding A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark)

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 Ø — Application for registration No 17 429 044

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2020 in Case R 1375/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of this application;

— order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Failure to correctly determine the visual, phonetic or conceptual similarity;
Action brought on 26 March 2020 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament

(Case T-188/20)

(2020/C 262/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: SA Close (Harzé-Aywaille, Belgium) and Cegelec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Rikkers and J. Teheux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— provisionally order the European Union, represented by the European Parliament, to pay compensation estimated at EUR 3 906 043 plus interest at the statutory rate from the date on which the damage arose, namely 27 March 2015;

— before ruling on the action, the applicants seek a stay of proceedings pending the judgment of the Court of Justice in the proceedings currently pending in Case C-447/19 and, if appropriate, of the General Court in the event of a referral;

— reserve ruling on the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants claim that, if the appeal seeking to have set aside the judgment of 9 April 2019 (Case C-447/19, Close and Cegelec v Parliament) were upheld, it would have to entail the annulment of the decision taken on 19 March 2015 by the Parliament to award the public works contract concerning the ‘Project for the extension and refurbishment of the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg’, lot 73 (power station), reference INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-AO4, to the Association Momentanée ENERGIE-KAD (composed of the companies MERSCH and SCHMITZ PRODUCTION SARL and ENERGOLUX S. A) and, correlatively, not to have chosen the applicants’ tender, it follows that, firstly, the Association Momentanée ENERGIE-KAD could not be selected and that, secondly, the applicants, having submitted the lowest tender, should have been awarded the contract, the award of the contract being based solely on the criterion of price. The damage suffered is provisionally assessed at 10 % of the amount of their tender.
—

declare that i) the Research Executive Agency has breached its contractual obligations under the Grant Agreement FP7-SEC-2012-312484, concluded in the context of Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities, ii) the claim formulated in the debit notes no 3242005872 concerning the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 171 342,97 for unjustified contribution and no 3242005825 concerning the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 17 134,30 for liquidated damages, is unfounded, and iii) the corresponding costs for the in-house consultants are eligible; and,
—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of the 2020 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2020/24), including the annexes thereto, in any event in so far as the contested decision, including the annexes thereto, concerns the contribution to be paid by the applicant; and
Action brought on 27 May 2020 KI v eu-LISA

(Case T-338/20)

(2020/C 279/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KI (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 15 July 2019 to reassign the applicant to another position;

— as far as necessary, annul the decision of 17 February 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

— order the compensation of his moral prejudice estimated at 10 000 EUR; and,

— order the defendant to pay all 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 an illegality of the decision of the Executive Director of 25 June 2019, confirmed and complemented by the decision of the Executive Director of 29 August 2019, insofar as it violates the requirements of a fair and transparent comparison of merits, the principle of non-discrimination, Article 41 of the Charter and the interest of the service.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision manifestly violates the interests of the service and the principle of assignment to an equivalent post.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to be heard, of the duty to state reasons and of Article 41 of the Charter.
1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in assessing the facts of the case, and breached Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, as well as Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union, and in particular paragraphs 9 thereof, when it considered that the applicant breached the terms of the undertaking agreed between the Commission and the CCCME on behalf of inter alia the applicant. The applicant acted in compliance with the undertaking by reporting invoices corresponding to the resales made by Suntech Europe France, Suntech Power Italy Co., Srl and Suntech Power Deutschland GmbH to the first independent customer in the EU until it ceased to be related to these companies. The applicant acted in compliance with the undertaking as well by notifying the Commission in a timely manner about the change to its shareholding following a restructuring that ended the affiliation of the applicant to the aforementioned companies.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality. First, the applicant raises a plea of illegality on the ground that Article 40 of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank (EIB) does not comply with the principle of impartiality so far as objective impartiality is concerned. Secondly, she submits that the procedure put in place by the EIB infringed the principle of impartiality so far as subjective impartiality is concerned.
—

In this regard the applicant claims that the selection board infringed the competition notice (first paragraph of Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations), in so far as it did not take into account her professional qualities, clearly disregarding the requirements of the competition notice and the functions assigned to the successful candidates.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Crédit agricole and Others v SRB

(Case T-445/20)

(2020/C 304/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and the 48 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, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-444/20, Société générale and Others v SRB.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 July 2020 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

(Case T-441/20)

(2020/C 297/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India), Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/526 of 15 April 2020 re-imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India as regards Jindal Saw Limited following the judgment of the General Court in T-300/16;

— order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 and of the general principle of non-retroactivity.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of non-retroactivity and the general principle of legal certainty.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and Article 264 TFEU.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and Article 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 103 of the Union Customs Code and Article 296 TFEU.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 July 2020 — Tecnica Group v EUIPO — Zeitneu (Shape of a boot)

(Case T-483/20)

(2020/C 320/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tecnica Group SpA (Giavera del Montello, Italy) (represented by: C. Sala, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zeitneu GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of a boot) — European Union trade mark No 10 168 441

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2020 in Case R 1093/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the principle of res judicata under Articles 123 and 124 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of the principles of legality, equal treatment and sound administration under Articles 123 and 124 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations under Articles 123 and 124 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 127 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 July 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Ou (-Vpro)

(Case T-491/20)

(2020/C 313/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kuei-Chin Ou (Taipei, Taiwan)

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 the EU figurative mark –Vpro — Application for registration No 17 741 133

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2020 in Case R 1758/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent, it upholds the decision of the Opposition Division in opposition proceedings B 3 055 001, granting EU trade mark No 17 741 133 -Vpro (figurative), to distinguish goods in Classes 24 and 25;

— order any party or parties opposing this action 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.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 August 2020 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — Rolf Lubricants (ROLF)

(Case T-531/20)

(2020/C 339/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wolf Oil Corp. (Hemiksem, Belgium) (represented by: T. Heremans and L. Depypere, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rolf Lubricants GmbH (Leverkusen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trademark 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 figurative mark ROLF — International registration designating the European Union No 1 286 835

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2020 in Case R 1958/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— in the alternative, alter the contested decision so that its action is held to be well-founded and, consequently its opposition upheld;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 3 August 2020 — CRII-GEN and Others v Commission

(Case T-496/20)

(2020/C 329/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Comité de recherche et d’information indépendantes sur le génie génétique CRII-GEN (Paris, France) and the six other applicants (represented by: C. Lepage, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible;

— annul the decision at issue;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action against the decision of the Commission of 17 June 2020 dismissing the applicant’s informal appeal seeking the revocation of the approval of glyphosate, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging failure to apply the precautionary principle. According to the applicants, the precautionary principle gives a reason for taking restrictive measures in respect of the authorisation of glyphosate, thus leading to a review, or even the revocation of its authorisation. In that regard, they claim that countless studies show both the carcinogenic risk and the risk as an endocrine disruptor of glyphosate and the products deriving from it. Furthermore, the link that is progressively being identified between air polluting pesticides and Covid-19 necessarily entails a review of the authorisation of glyphosate in the light of those new circumstances.
1.

First plea in law, alleging, first, breach of Article 23 of Annex I to 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). Second, that plea in law alleges a manifest error of assessment: — in so far as the Commission did not verify whether the tenderer’s prices were abnormal; — in so far as the Commission did not regard the tenderer’s bid as abnormally low.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU in so far as the Commission fails to justify why there are doubts as to a right to compensation and to determine the level of overcompensation which Vattenfall received, and in so far as the decision is inherently contradictory.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 September 2020 — Roller v EUIPO — Flex Equipos de Descanso (DORMILLO)

(Case T-596/20)

(2020/C 378/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roller GmbH & Co. KG (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: W. Zürbig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA (Getafe, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark DORMILLO — International registration designating the European Union No 1 410 451

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2020 in Case R 2846/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition of the opponent as far as protection of international registration No 1 410 451 is refused for the European Union for all the contested goods and services of classes 20, 24 and 35;

— grant protection for the contested international registration Dormillo No 1 410 451 for all contested designated goods and services for the territory of the European Union;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018, L 295, p. 39), infringement of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations and infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the duty of care. In support of that plea, the applicant argues that his personal data were accessed illegally, that the defendant refused to open an investigation and that the latter unduly supported his ex-spouse.
2.

Second plea in law alleging infringement of the rules for the appraisal of concentrations laid down in Article 2(1) of Regulation No 139/2004, in so far as the Commission did not take into account the fact that the acquisition by PKN Orlen of Grupa Lotos affects access to the supply of raw material for operators on the market for refined and dehydrated paraffin, paraffin waxes and paraffin-based products, and nor did it take into account the legal barriers to entry to that market arising as a result of the concentration. — In support of that plea, the applicant claims that, after the acquisition of Grupa Lotos by PKN Orlen, all the raw material in the form of slack wax (heavy and light) along with the whole transport and logistic infrastructure in Poland, Lithuania and the Czech Republic would fall into the hands of one entity, so that that entity would be able to dictate price conditions and/or the conditions associated with the supply of the raw material not only to the entities currently operating on that market, but also to any entity that intends to enter that market in the future. The above difficulties in carrying out business activities would not be encountered by Orlen Południe S.A., the company controlled in its entirety by PKN Orlen.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 September 2020 — Univers Agro v EUIPO — Shandong Hengfeng Rubber & Plastic (AGATE)

(Case T-592/20)

(2020/C 390/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Univers Agro EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: C. Hernández-Martí Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shandong Hengfeng Rubber & Plastic Co. Ltd (Dongying, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark AGATE — European Union trade mark No 16 440 596

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2020 in Case R 725/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declares the EUTM No 16 440 596 as a valid trade mark;

— order EUIPO, and if applicable, the intervener, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by considering the EUTM proprietor acted in bad faith when the application for the mark was filed;