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

Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Mutondo v Council

(Case T-109/21)

(2021/C 128/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 11 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 11 in the annex 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, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/21, Boshab v Council.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 107(1) TFEU and the obligation to state reasons by stating, in a corrigendum to the contested decision, that the market economy operator test was inapplicable after having found it applicable in a previous decision.
2.

Second plea in law: The defendant insufficiently assessed the facts — In determining the relevant product market, the defendant failed to investigate, with regard to the retail supply of electricity and gas to German households and small business customers (HSBs), from the customer’s perspective, the impact on the product market definition of the homogeneity of the products, the uniformity of their intended use and other important factors for the retail supply to HSBs. It therefore incorrectly took the view that there were separate markets for basic supply and supply under special contracts. — The defendant failed to clarify in connection with the geographic market definition how the supply side and demand side is configured for the local retail supply to HSBs and accordingly misunderstood the actual local structure, which was differentiated by postcode. — As regards conditions on the local HSB markets, E.ON and innogy’s pooling of customer portfolios in their established supply areas, the dominant presence of E.ON on the central distribution channels Google, Verivox and Check24 and the ability to exclude third party providers were not (correctly) assessed. — The assessment of the network business was also insufficient. That was the case in relation to both (i) E.ON’s high market penetration in sourcing of network equipment, network services and network IT and its own network-related services offering to third parties in relation to the operation of distribution networks and (ii) competition for distribution networks themselves (so-called competition for concessions). In particular, there was a failure to forecast, or to forecast correctly, the future consequences of innogy being eliminated as a competitor to E.ON in competition for concessions. — There was only a selective analysis of the innovative business at the interface between the distribution business and network business dominated by E.ON, including with reference to the significance of metering as a gateway to innovative product solutions and E.ON’s role therein. Only the operation of charging points on motorways was considered in relation to E-mobility, which is undergoing rapid growth, but the operation of such charging points forms only one part of the market. The important forward-looking topics of Big Data and innovative (bundle) products received only a cursory assessment. — As a whole, the assessment was incorrectly based on considerations concerning the past. Effects over the coming years (e.g. through increasing shortages of skills in network deployment, increasing importance of data) were not examined.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the grounds on which the decision is based. The applicant submits, in particular, that the letter of 29 November 2019, sent by the Portuguese Government to the Council, contained two serious errors, acknowledged moreover by the Portuguese Government itself. These were the reference to the Portuguese Government’s preferred candidate, on six occasions, as ‘the deputy prosecutor general, José Guerra’, and the statement that that prosecutor held an investigating and prosecuting role in an important case concerning crimes against the European Union’s financial interests. However, the prosecutor appointed by the contested act neither was nor is deputy prosecutor general, nor did he participate in the aforementioned case at the investigation stage. While it is true that the Council denies that those two errors were of relevance to its decision, it is also true that it never referred to them and corrected them, despite accepting the remaining arguments put forward by the Portuguese Government in the letter. In fact, the Council only addressed the issue of the errors after the facts under consideration became public, giving rise moreover to a considerable public clamour, both in Portugal and in Europe.
—

award the applicant the amount equivalent to the difference between the recalculated amount of his pension and the amount actually received by [QC], for the period starting on 1 May 2020 and ending on the date of that recalculation of pension rights, together with statutory interest, to be calculated as from the payment of that sum, or, in the alternative, as from the date on which the complaint was lodged, or, in the further alternative, as from the date on which the present application was lodged, subject to an increase in that amount for the months after January 2021, and until the annulment of the contested implied refusal decision;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(2) of the EC Merger Regulation. The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission infringed that provision by finding that, first, the exception laid down in that article must be applied to the single concentration envisaged by Veolia as a whole although that exception was clearly devoid of purpose and therefore inapplicable to that concentration and, second, all the legal transactions which constitute a single concentration must be covered by the same legal regime in the light of that article. The applicant also considers that the application, by the Commission, of the exception laid down by that provision to the private acquisition of securities acquired from a single seller constitutes an additional infringement of that article. Finally, the applicant criticises the Commission for having considered that Veolia had met the condition related to notification without delay of the concentration.
Action brought on 26 February 2021 — Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission

(Case T-126/21)

(2021/C 148/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot (Nevinnomyssk, Russia) and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ (Novomoskovsk, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and E. Gergondet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2020/2100 of 15 December 2020, (1) as far as it applies to the applicants;

— order the defendant to to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not receive an expiry review request containing ‘sufficient evidence’ and therefore committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 11(2), 11(5) and 5(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, (2) and violated its duty to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case when it initiated the expiry review.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2020/2100 of 15 December 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2020 L 425, p. 21).

(2) 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 (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).
annul the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the applicant’s request to access Commission documents, reference GestDem 2021/0592, through the issuing of copies of

all minutes, summaries, memoranda, notes, files from meetings, negotiations, decisions, proposals, transcripts, emails, letters, records of telephone calls — in particular regarding advance purchase agreements — and specific contracts with pharmaceutical companies for the delivery of COVID-19 vaccines to combat the COVID-19 pandemic drawn up by the ‘Steering Committee’ and ‘Joint Negotiations Team’. By ‘advance purchase agreements’ we understand every contract for the purchase, delivery, securing, reservation, or development of COVID-19 vaccines for EU Member States.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 March 2021 — Bustos v EUIPO — Bicicletas Monty (motwi)

(Case T-159/21)

(2021/C 182/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Dante Ricardo Bustos (Wenling, China) (represented by: A. Lorente Berges, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bicicletas Monty, SA (Sant Feliú de Llobregat, 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 registration of the European Union figurative mark motwi — Application No 17 802 158

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2021 in Case R 289/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant the registration of the European Union mark No 17 802 158 motwi in respect of the goods applied for in Class 12 of the Nice Agreement;

— order the defendants to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

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 12 April 2021 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Stelis Biopharma (HYALOSTEL ONE)

(Case T-194/21)

(2021/C 217/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stelis Biopharma ltd. (Karnataka, India)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative HYALOSTEL ONE mark — International registration designating the European Union No 1 399 649

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 January 2021 in Case R 831/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, in the alternative, if the other party before the Board of Appeal intervenes, order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 165(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Articles 32(f) and 39(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of the right to be heard and the obligation to state reasons pursuant Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment by finding that the renewal of the existing sports betting, horse race betting, lottery and casino licenses of the incumbent licensees by the Netherlands does not grant an advantage within the meaning of article 107(1) TFEU. — It is argued that the defendant made manifest errors of fact, first, as concerns the finding of the defendant that all the licensees are under a legal obligation to remit the net proceeds of the gambling activities to goals that serve the common interest, and, secondly, as concerns the finding of the defendant that the licensees were not able to make a profit. — Furthermore, the applicant maintains that the defendant made manifest errors of law, as concerns the finding of the defendant that the granting of the licenses in question did not confer an advantage on the beneficiaries as these licenses cannot be said to have improved the financial situation of the licensees.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 April 2021 — Stryker v EUIPO (RUGGED)

(Case T-204/21)

(2021/C 217/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stryker Corp. (Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States) (represented by: I. Fowler, I. Junkar, and B. Worbes, lawyers)

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 word mark RUGGED

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2021 in Case R 370/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71(1) read in conjunction with Article 67 Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and lack of competence by exceeding the limits of its power;

— Infringement of Article 7(3) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and incorrect statement that the evidence filed in relation to acquired distinctiveness is insufficient;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 April 2021 — Kalita and Haas v EUIPO — Kitzbühel Tourismus (Representation of two animals)

(Case T-206/21)

(2021/C 217/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicants: Oliver Kalita (Jochberg, Austria) and Christian Haas (Kitzbühel, Austria) (represented by: G. Donath, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kitzbühel Tourismus, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (Kitzbühel, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicants

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU figurative mark (Representation of two animals) — Application for registration No 17 997 789

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 February 2021 in Case R 863/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

in the alternative,

— alter the contested decision to the effect that the appeal is dismissed in its entirety and, consequently, reinstate the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 6 April 2020;

— in any event, order the defendant and/or the other party as a qualified intervener to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

First plea in law, plea of illegality against Article 32 of Communication No 0011/2019 of 19 November 2019. The applicant takes the view that that the fact that a Member cannot take a copy of the file allows it to be manipulated before it is communicated to the members of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Parliament (‘the JURI Committee’). According to him, that provision constitutes a manifest violation of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair trial, and infringement of the general principle of equality of arms and of fairness in proceedings.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 April 2021 — Shopify v EUIPO — Rossi and Others (Shoppi)

(Case T-222/21)

(2021/C 228/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shopify Inc. (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Massimo Carlo Alberto Rossi (Fiano, Italy), Salvatore Vacante (Berlin, Germany), Shoppi Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Shoppi in dark blue, white, red, orange — European Union trade mark No 16 684 797

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2021 in Case R 785/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the appeal of the other parties to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO against the Cancellation Division’s decision of 6 February 2020 (invalidity number: 000034203 C);

— order EUIPO and the other parties to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
—

annul the decision of 12 June 2020 by which the applicant was informed that his contract had not been confirmed at the end of the probationary period and would therefore end on 30 June 2020;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 May 2021 — Fibrecycle v EUIPO (BACK-2-NATURE)

(Case T-248/21)

(2021/C 252/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fibrecycle Pty Ltd (Helensvale, Australia) (represented by: T. Stein, 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 word mark BACK-2-NATURE — International registration designating the European Union No 1 485 655

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2021 in Case R 1699/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (RENŠKI HRAM)

(Case T-286/21)

(2021/C 278/87)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia)

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 RENŠKI HRAM — European Union trade mark No 15 297 302

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2021 in Case R 679/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present application;

— reform the contested decision in such manner to uphold the applicant’s appeal and reform the decision issued in cancellation procedure No 26 907 C of 17 March 2020 in such manner, to uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested trade mark RENŠKI HRAM and to declare the contested trade mark invalid in its entirety;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

— remit the case back to the EUIPO for further deliberation;

— order EUIPO to pay all costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 May 2021 — Tigercat International v EUIPO — Caterpillar (Tigercat)

(Case T-251/21)

(2021/C 263/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tigercat International Inc. (Cambridge, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: S. Weidert, M. Pemsel and H. Bug, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Caterpillar Inc. (Peoria, Illinois, 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 Tigercat — Application for registration No 12 124 368

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2021 in Case R 16/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other parties to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 June 2021 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Nordesta (APIAL)

(Case T-315/21)

(2021/C 289/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Miralles Llorca, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nordesta GmbH (Munich, Germany)

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 APIAL — Application for registration No 17 958 998

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 in Case R 1560/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— revoke the contested decision and reject the granting of the European Union trade mark Noo17 958 998 APIAL for all goods in class 3, 4 and 5;

— order EUIPO and, in case Nordesta GmbH decides to intervene in the present proceedings, Nordesta GmbH, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 19 May 2021 — Estetica Group Iwona Michalak v EUIPO (PURE BEAUTY)

(Case T-270/21)

(2021/C 278/76)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Estetica Group Iwona Michalak (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Gutowski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark PURE BEAUTY — Application No 18 160 933

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2021 in Case R 1456/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision by declaring that, in relation to the mark applied for, there is no absolute ground for refusal as referred to in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— 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;