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

Action brought on 7 February 2019 — Pontinova v EUIPO — Ponti & Partners (pontinova)

(Case T-76/19)

(2019/C 122/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pontinova AG (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Loth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ponti & Partners, SLP (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark pontinova — Application for registration No 15 878 085

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 in Case R 566/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— award the costs in favour of the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (CKPL)

(Case T-92/19)

(2019/C 139/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, 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 (CKPL) — Application for registration No 15 368 897

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1060/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (tradingcurrencyassistant)

(Case T-91/19)

(2019/C 139/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, 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 tradingcurrencyassistant — Application for registration No 15 225 238

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1056/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Numbi v Council

(Case T-120/19)

(2019/C 139/100)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: John Numbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(a) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Mutondo v Council

(Case T-119/19)

(2019/C 139/99)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kalev Mutondo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 14 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 14 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(a) and (b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 March 2019 — Style & Taste v EUIPO — The Polo/Lauren Company (Representation of a polo player)

(Case T-169/19)

(2019/C 155/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Style & Taste, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Plaza Fernández-Villa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Polo/Lauren Company LP (New York, New York, United States)

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: Figurative mark (Representation of a polo player) — European Union trade mark No 4 049 201

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of

7 January 2019 in Case R 1272/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should declare that Community trade mark No 4 049 201 was preceded by industrial design 24087 and, consequently, declare that EU trade mark No 4 049 201, the property of PRL, lacks distinctiveness as laid down in the applicable rules and, consequently, annul that EU trade mark.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 53(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 207/2009.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the illness of the applicant involved the suspension of the notice period and the application of the social security scheme. The applicant submits that the contrary would constitute a breach of the staff regulations, of the duty of care and of the principle of legitimate expectations.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 March 2019 — Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know v Commission

(Case T-185/19)

(2019/C 172/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (Sebastopol, California, United States), Right to Know CLG (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor, A. Grünwald, J. Hackl and C. Nüßing, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul decision C(2019) 639 final of the European Commission of 22 January 2019 (including the initial decision of 15 November 2018 with reference GROW/D3/ALR/dr (2018) 5993057);

— in the alternative, refer the matter back to the European Commission; and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misinterpreted and/or misapplied Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (1) since this provision does not protect the requested harmonised standards: — No copyright protection of the requested harmonised standards is possible because they are part of EU Law; — The requested harmonised standards lack originality and therefore do not benefit from copyright protection; — The defendant did not demonstrate the alleged undermining of the commercial interest of the standardisation organization.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed the last clause of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since it wrongly denied that the applicants have an overriding public interest in access to the requested harmonised standards: — The concepts of the rule of law and fundamental rights require free access to the laws of the European Union; — The requested standards contain environmental information and particularly information on emissions into the environment and therefore must be released according to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006; (2) — The defendant did not give adequate reasons for the denial of the overriding public interest.

(1) Regulation (EC) 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).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).
3.

Third plea in law: there is no evidence that the applicant has carried out terrorist activities or that he can be linked to such activities. There is no evidence behind the allegation that he carried out recruiting and financing activities.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 April 2019 — Knaus Tabbert v EUIPO — Carado (CaraTour)

(Case T-202/19)

(2019/C 182/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Knaus Tabbert GmbH (Jandelsbrunn, Germany) (represented by: N. Maenz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carado GmbH (Leutkirch im Allgäu, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark CaraTour — Application for registration No 15 366 313

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 in Case R 506/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject Carado GmbH’s opposition of 27 July 2016 regarding EU trade mark No 4 935 334 and German trade mark No 30 611 776 (Case B 2 742 784) in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 March 2019 — Koenig & Bauer v EUIPO (we’re on it)

(Case T-156/19)

(2019/C 148/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Koenig & Bauer AG (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: B. Reinisch, B. Sorg and M. Ringer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Registration of EU word mark we’re on it — Application for registration No 16 983 066

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2019 in Case R 1027/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and amend it to the effect that EUIPO’s decision of 23 April 2018 rejecting EU trade mark application No 16 983 066 is annulled, continue the registration procedure of EU trade mark application No 16 983 066 and refund the applicant (applicant for the contested mark) the costs incurred in relation to the appeal;

— 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 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 April 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Optima Naturals (OptiMar)

(Case T-261/19)

(2019/C 206/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optima Naturals Srl (Gallarate, 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 trade mark OptiMar — EU trade mark No 15 176 258

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2019 in Case R 1348/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging a false interpretation of article 4(1) (a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulation concerning the definition of the habitual residence, given that the contested decisions disregard the diplomatic status of the applicant’s spouse covering the most of the critical period of 5 years ending six months before she entered the service and because they took into account interim contracts the applicant has had, while her family returned back to their home country.
Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Thunus and Others v EIB

(Case T-247/19)

(2019/C 206/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Vincent Thunus (Contern, Luxembourg) and 7 other applicants (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— declare that the action is admissible and well-founded, including the plea of illegality which it contains;

— consequently, — annul the decision contained in the applicants’ payslips for the month of February 2018, a decision fixing the annual adjustment of the basic salary limited to 0.7% for the year 2018, and, therefore, the annulment of the similar decisions contained in the subsequent payslips;

— therefore, order the defendant — to pay compensation for material damage (i) for the outstanding salary corresponding to the application of the annual adjustment for 2018, that is, an increase of 1.4% for the period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018; (ii) for the outstanding salary corresponding to the consequences of applying the annual adjustment of 0.7% for 2018 on the amount of the salaries which will be paid from January 2018; (iii) for default interest on outstanding salaries due until full payment of the amounts due, the rate of default interest to be applied having to be calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable during the relevant period, plus three percentage points;

— if necessary, should it fail to produce them voluntarily, order the defendant, by way of measures of organisation of procedure, to produce the following documents: — the decision of the Board of Directors of the EIB of 18 July 2017 (CA/505/17); — the decision of the Management Committee of 30 January 2018 (MC-021-ADM-15-2018); — the note from the management of Personnel of 25 January 2018 (CS/PERS-QMS/ACB/2018-0011);

— order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely, first, as regards the decision of the Board of Directors of 18 July 2017, on two pleas in law and, second, as regards the decision of the Management Committee of 30 January 2018, on three pleas in law, respectively.

In respect of the decision of the Board of Directors of 18 July 2017:

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of legitimate expectation and acquired rights.

In respect of the decision of the Management Committee of 30 January 2018:

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural guarantees of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of consultation with the Board.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

As regards the claim for compensation, the applicants seek payment of the difference of salary due, that is 1.4% from 1 January 2018 (including the effect of that increase on financial benefits) plus late payment interest.
1.

First plea in law, alleging (i) failure to observe the principle of contractual good faith, (ii) infringement of the rights of defence during the phase following the close of the investigation, (iii) infringement of the right to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), (iv) infringement of the right to good administration within the meaning of Article 41 of the Charter, (v) infringement of the right of access to documents within the meaning of Article 42 of the Charter, (vi) infringement of Article II.22 of the Grant Agreement and (vii) infringement of Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code. — The applicant claims in this regard that the Commission did not take account of its request for a stay of proceedings and for access to OLAF’s investigation file, but instead issued the [initial] debit note and subsequent reminders, despite the fact that the company was not in a position to comment on OLAF’s final report on account of continuing internal problems. Accordingly, the Commission failed to observe the principle of contractual good faith and infringed the [applicant’s] right to an effective defence both during the administrative procedure and before the General Court.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 April 2019 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios ((Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)

(Case T-282/19)

(2019/C 213/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC (Queen’s Counsel), S. Baran, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Filotas Bellas & Yios AE (Alexandreia Imathias, Greece)

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 mark Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese/grill est/grill kase M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927 — European Union trade mark No 12 172 276

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2019 in Case R 2295/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the Defendant to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant for Annulment.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
11.

Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated essential procedural requirements and due process. It refused to market test the first two commitments and launched the market test far too late in the process.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 May 2019 — Welmax + v EUIPO — Valmex Medical Imaging (welmax)

(Case T-305/19)

(2019/C 230/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Welmax + sp. z o.o. sp. k. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: M. Machyński, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Valmex Medical Imaging GmbH (Augsburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘welmax’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 342 786

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2019 in Case R 2245/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety and give judgment on the substance of the case;

— issue judgment by default in the cases provided for by law;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Court, including the costs incurred in respect of legal representation in accordance with the rules laid down by law.

Pleas in law

— Error of assessment with regard to the facts upon which the decision was based, which consisted in accepting that the decision which, in accordance with the legal provisions, could be the subject of an appeal, was effectively notified to the applicant on 20 July 2018 (allegedly by courier service), whereas the contents of that decision were notified to the applicant on 21 September 2018, after prior correspondence by email and a request to that effect had been submitted by the applicant to an agent of EUIPO;

— Infringement of Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;