ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 3 January 2022 — Loutsou v EUIPO (POLIS LOUTRON)

(Case T-13/22)

(2022/C 138/25)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Alexandra Loutsou (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: S. Psomakakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the European Union figurative mark POLIS LOUTRON — Application for registration No 18 144 809

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2021 in Case R 544/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action admissible;

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO in Case R 544/2020-1, relating to EU trade mark application No 18 144 809, well founded and admissible;

— annul in part notification No L 110 of 8 November 2019 concerning the notification of the grounds for refusal of EU trade mark application No 18 144 809, with the result that that application for registration is upheld in its entirety and the mark at issue registered as a distinctive sign of the goods and services of the undertaking of the applicant in the territory of the European Union for the classes applied for;

— annul in part notification No L 123 of 20 January 2020 rejecting EU trade mark application No 18 144 809, with the result that that application for registration is upheld in its entirety and the mark at issue registered as a distinctive sign of the goods and services of the undertaking of the applicant in the territory of the European Union for the classes applied for;

— order EUIPO, the defendant, to register the mark POLIS LOUTRON as a trade mark in all the classes applied for and in respect of all the goods and services applied for;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

The contested decision incorrectly interpreted and applied the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, since the mark at issue is neither descriptive nor lacking distinctive character, and there are therefore no grounds to prevent it from being registered for the classes in question and in respect of the goods and services therein.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 February 2022 — Brooks England v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (BROOKS ENGLAND)

(Case T-63/22)

(2022/C 148/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Brooks England Ltd (Smethwick, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Feltrinelli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brooks Sports, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, 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 figurative mark BROOKS ENGLAND — Application for registration No 3 298 321

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2021 in Case R 2432/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the action brought by the plaintiff;

— entirely annul the contested decision and therefore declare that the contested sign should be registered for all the contested goods;

— as a subordinary request, to partially annul the contested decision declaring that the contested sign should be registered for at least the contested goods in class 18;

— order EUIPO to reimburse all legal expenses borne by the plaintiff in connection with the previous and present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the likelihood of confusion between the contested sign and the earlier trademark;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the evidence of use of the earlier trademark;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the comparison of the goods;
Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Kande Mupompa v Council

(Case T-90/22)

(2022/C 148/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alex Kande Mupompa (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

— annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 7 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 7 in Annex I to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence. In that respect, the applicant raises a number of complaints regarding the infringement of his rights in the course of the procedures which led the Council to adopt and renew the restrictive measures against him and, in particular the infringement of his right to be heard under acceptable conditions.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment regarding the applicant’s involvement in acts constituting serious human rights breaches in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The applicant criticises the context of the review, which preceded the contested renewal of the restrictive measures and disputes any current involvement in the events underpinning the decision to include him in the list of persons covered by Decision 2010/788/CFSP.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3).
3.

Third plea, alleging infringement of point 36 of the EIB’s Statement of Environmental and Social Principles and Standards of 2009. — In that regard, the applicant claims specifically that point 36 provides that the EIB requires that all projects that it finances comply at least with: — Applicable national environmental law; — Applicable EU environmental law, notably the EIA Directive and the nature conservation directives, as well as sector-specific directives and ‘cross-cutting’ directives; — The principles and standards of relevant international environmental conventions incorporated into EU law. In the present case, none of those subpoints was complied with. The applicant claims that the following infringements are clear: a. EU environmental legislation, more specifically: a.I recital 36 of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013, read in conjunction with Articles 4 and 14 thereof (failure to carry out a cost-benefit analysis); a.II recital 31 of Regulation No 347/2013, read in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Directive 2011/92/EU and Note 1 of Annex IV to that directive (external cumulative effect); a.III recital 31 of Regulation No 347/2013, read in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Directive 2011/92/EU and Note 1 of Annex IV to that directive (internal cumulative effect) — prohibition of ‘salami slicing’; a.IV Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/92/EU, Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive; a.V Article 4(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC, (5) the Birds Directive; a.VI recital 30 of Regulation No 1367/2006, read in conjunction with Article 9 thereof and Article 6 of the EIA Directive (transparency and participation); a.VII recital 28 of Regulation No 347/2013, read in conjunction with Article 7 thereof (Habitat rules); a.VIII Infringement of Article 191(1) TFEU together with the infringement of the Statement of Environmental and Social Principles and Standards of the European Investment Bank, approved by the Board of Directors on 3 February 2009. b. Italian legislation, more specifically: b.I Legislative Decree 42/2004 transposing Article 26 of the Landscape Convention; b.II Legislative Decree 42/2004 transposing Article 146 of the Landscape Convention; b.III Article 14b of the Law of 7 August 1990 No 241, Interdepartmental conference; b.IV Rule A57 of Ministerial Decree relating to environmental compatibility 223/14; b.V Legislative Decree 152/06, failure to impose sanctions; b.VI Article 452c of the Criminal Code (environmental disaster).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 February 2022 — Korporaciya ‘Masternet’/EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER)

(Case T-85/22)

(2022/C 158/14)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: ZAO Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Bürglen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stayer Ibérica, SA (Pinto, 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 STAYER — European Union trade mark No 9 498 395

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2021 in Case R 932/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the tender specifications, breach of the principles of good administration and, in particular, of the principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti and of the duty of thoroughness. According to the applicants, the Commission infringed its own tender specifications by reasoning the tenderer’s price as normal on account of 60 % of the services carried out in Romania and Greece being subcontracted. Moreover, the Commission did not take into consideration the start of the performance of the contract by the tenderer, which contradicts the reasoning adopted in the confirmatory decision.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 March 2022 — Coinbase v EUIPO — Coinbase Global (coinbase)

(Case T-126/22)

(2022/C 171/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Coinbase, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coinbase Global OÜ (Tallinn, Estonia)

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 coinbase — Application for registration No 18 090 762

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2021 in Case R 1097/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 31 March 2022 — OR and OS v Commission

(Case T-171/22)

(2022/C 207/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: OR and OS (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 12 July 2021 by which the [Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements of the European Commission (PMO)] rejected the applicants’ request of 18 March 2021, made on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, for payment of the pension rights accumulated by their deceased father under the Pension Scheme of the European Union Institutions (‘the PSEUI’) and of the pension rights acquired prior to his entry into service;

— annul, in so far as it is considered to supplement the statement of reasons, the decision of 22 December 2021 by which the Appointing Authority rejected the applicants’ complaint of 20 September 2021;

— order the defendant to return to the applicants the amount of the rights corresponding to the contributions made by the deceased to the PSEUI and the amount of his national pension rights transferred thereto;

— order the defendant to pay the interest due on the amounts to be returned at the European Central Bank interest rate, increased by two percentage points, from the date of the transfer and the monthly contributions;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging unjust enrichment of the European Union. The applicants argue in this regard that their father had acquired, prior to his death, the right to transfer his years of pensionable service acquired under the PSEUI and the years of pensionable service acquired under his national pension rights, and emphasise that this right is not subject to any limitation period. The applicants add that, since their father had not completed, prior to his death, the ten years of actual service that would have enabled him to benefit from the payment of a retirement pension under the PSEUI, the sums contributed constitute unjust enrichment of the European Union.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 March 2022 — Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret v EUIPO — Yadex International (pinar KURUYEMIŞ)

(Case T-148/22)

(2022/C 198/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pinar Kuruyemiş Gida Ve Ihtiyaç Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret AŞ (Karatay/Konya, Turkey) (represented by: M. López Camba and A. Lyubomirova Geleva, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yadex International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

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 pinar KURUYEMIŞ — Application for registration No 18 161 596

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2022 in Case R 1149/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to the extent that it maintains the upholding of opposition B003110050;

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

— Order Yadex International GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;
Action brought on 12 April 2022 — BNP Paribas v ECB

(Case T-186/22)

(2022/C 213/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BNP Paribas (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gossett-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul section 1.10 and sections 3.10.1 to 3.10.8 of ECB decision No ECB-SSM-2022-FRBNP-7 of 2 February 2022 (together with its annexes), in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs

— adopt, under Articles 88 and 89 of the Rules of Procedure, a measure of organisation of procedure requesting that the ECB communicate the decisions in respect of irrevocable payment commitments taken for other banking institutions for 2021, particularly those in respect of the other French banking institutions.

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 error of law and infringement of Article 266 TFEU. The applicant argues in that respect that by imposing, in the contested decision, a measure of general principle and based on a reasoning disregarding its individual prudential situation, the ECB exceeded the powers granted to it through Regulation No 1024/2013, (1) as made clear by the case-law of the General Court of the European Union.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appreciation and a breach of the principle of good administration. The applicant considers that the ECB, by failing to take into account all the relevant factors characterising its specific situation, drew incorrect conclusions regarding the prudential risks that would be induced by the action of the irrevocable payment commitments (IPC) on its individual situation.

3. Third plea in law, alleging an error of law by reason of a deprivation of effectiveness of the provisions of EU law governing the use of IPC. According to the applicant, since the ECB based its analysis on the points of principle may only lead to a requirement of full deduction of the IPC from the Common Equity Tier 1, that would lead to EU legislation authorising the credit institutions to use IPC in order to fulfil part of their obligations vis-à-vis the resolution funds and deposit guarantee schemes being deprived of their effectiveness.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality, on the ground that the ECB imposed on the applicant an unjustified and disproportionate measure in the light of its prudential situation.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013, conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 April 2022 — Eggers & Franke v EUIPO — E. & J. Gallo Winery (E & F)

(Case T-184/22)

(2022/C 207/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Eggers & Franke Holding GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and H. Förster, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: E. & J. Gallo Winery (Modesto, 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 E & F — Application for registration No 18 037 083

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2022 in Case R 730/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and in case of an intervention also the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 April 2022 — Rimini Street v EUIPO — (OTHER COMPANIES DO SOFTWARE WE DO SUPPORT)

(Case T-204/22)

(2022/C 222/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rimini Street, Inc. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: E. Ratjen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark OTHER COMPANIES DO SOFTWARE WE DO SUPPORT — Application for registration No 1 559 651

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2022 in Case R 1389/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that by including the applicants in the annexes to the Contested Measures, the Council made a manifest error of assessment. Namely, the applicants claim that the Contested Measures provide unsubstantiated, factually incorrect and unfounded reasons for his designation. Further, the deficient reasons provided do not demonstrate a sufficiently substantive link to the scope of the measures
—

under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs. Ms Shahla Makhlouf requests that the Council be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by her, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings.
—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 15 February 2022 bearing reference number Ref. Ares (2022) 1097097 rejecting the request of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for review of the decision of 6 January 2022 and for an extension of four years of the eight-year period for recovery of amounts wrongly paid in the FresQ case;
Action brought on 11 April 2022 — Deutsche Bank and Others v ECB

(Case T-182/22)

(2022/C 244/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Deutsche Bank AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany), BHW Bausparkasse AG (Hameln, Germany), norisbank GmbH (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— partially annul the decision of the ECB of 2 February 2022, including Annexes I and II, with regard to the requirements imposed on the applicants pursuant to paragraph 1.3 of the decision; and

— order the ECB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed Union law by exceeding the powers conferred on it in Article 4 and Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) and breaching basic principles of Union law, as there is no provision in Union law permitting paragraph 1.3 of the contested decision concerning the prudential treatment of irrevocable payment commitments (‘IPC Requirement’), the ECB failed to carry out an individual and methodologically correct examination of the applicants’ situation and the IPC Requirement is based on inaccurate facts and several manifest errors of assessment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has breached the principle of proportionality by requiring a deduction of the full amount of irrevocable payment commitments from the applicants’ Common Equity Tier 1 (CET 1) on a consolidated and/or individual level, without taking into account the individual situation of the applicants and setting a deduction appropriate to the applicants’ individual risk profile and level of liquidity, and without properly appreciating mitigating factors.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed the principle of good administration and legal certainty and erred in applying Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 by imposing the IPC Requirement on the first and third applicants on an individual level. The first and third applicants have been granted waivers according to Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (2) and are, therefore, exempt from a prudential capital requirement on an individual level.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

(2) 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).