ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/37

Appeal brought on 13 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-55/13 De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-60/16 P)

(2016/C 111/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul points 2 and 3 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 59 to 64 of the judgment itself;

— Consequently, annul the guidelines established for the year 2011 or declare that they are no longer applicable; order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs;

— Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-55/13).

The grounds of appeal and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-55/16 P De Nicola v European Investment Bank.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/40

Action brought on 23 February 2016 — Codorníu v EUIPO — Bodegas Altun (ANA DE ALTUN)

(Case T-86/16)

(2016/C 136/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Codorníu SA (Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez and J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas Altun, SL (Baños de Ebro, Spain)

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: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ANA DE ALTUN’ — Application for registration No 11 860 913

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2015 in Case R 199/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings, should that party intervene, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the Commission misapplied the market economy operator (‘MEO’) test by carrying out a joint analysis of the airport services agreement with Ryanair and the marketing services agreement with AMS. Further, the Commission erroneously refused to rely on a comparator analysis. In the alternative, the Commission failed to attribute an appropriate value to marketing services, wrongly dismissed the rationale behind the Land’s decision to purchase such services, erroneously dismissed the possibility that part of the marketing services may have been purchased for general interest purposes, based its conclusions on incomplete and inappropriate data for its calculation of profitability, applied an excessively short time horizon, wrongly based its assessment on the agreed route only, and disregarded the network externalities that the airport could expect to gain from its relationship with Ryanair.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/53

Action brought on 29 February 2016 — Solenis Technologies v EUIPO (STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.)

(Case T-96/16)

(2016/C 156/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Solenis Technologies LP (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.’ — Application for registration No 13 355 508

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 December 2015 in Case R 613/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision insofar as it refuses the registration of EU trade mark application No 13 355 508 ‘STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
—

annul the European Central Bank decision of 29 January 2016 (ECB/SSM/2016 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/101) adopted under Article 4(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank and under Articles L. 511-13, L. 511-52, L. 511-58, L. 612-23-1 and R. 612-29-3 of the French monetary and financial code (code monétaire et financier français).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/18

Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Airhole Facemasks v EUIPO — sindustrysurf (AIRHOLE FACE MASKS YOU IDIOT)

(Case T-107/16)

(2016/C 175/22)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Airhole Facemasks, Inc. (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: A. Michaels, Barrister and S. Barker, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: sindustrysurf, SL (Trapagaran, 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: EU figurative mark in black and white containing the word elements ‘AIRHOLE FACE MASKS YOU IDIOT’ — EU trade mark No 9 215 427

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18/01/2016 in Case R 2547/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— reverse the contested decision, and declare the EUTM invalid in its entirety, or alternatively annul the contested decision;

— order sindustrysurf, SL to pay the applicant’s costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and to pay the costs ordered to be paid by the Cancellation Division.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 52(1)(b)of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

annul the decision of the Research Executive Agency (REA) to terminate Grant Agreement No 252908 for the COSSAR (Cooperative Spectrum Sensing Algorithms for Cognitive Radio Networks) Project (PIEF-GA-2009-252908), which was concluded on 26 July 2010 under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union — European Support for Training and Career Development of Researchers (Marie Curie) and to require the applicant to repay a portion of the financial assistance in the amounts of EUR 36 508,37 and EUR 58 031,38, to repay the security for the guarantee fund in the amount of 6 286,68 and to pay a contractual penalty in the amount of EUR 5 803,14;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/44

Appeal brought on 14 March 2016 by Inge Barnett, Suzanne Ditlevsen, Annie Madsen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-66/15, Barnett and others v EESC

(Case T-158/16 P)

(2016/C 191/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Inge Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark), Suzanne Ditlevsen (Copenhagen, Denmark), Annie Madsen (Frederiksberg, Denmark) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-66/15, Barnett and others v EESC;

giving judgment itself,

— annul the decisions contained in the pension slips of June 2014 by which the correction coefficient applicable to the applicants’ pensions is reduced from 1 January 2014;

— order the EESC to pay the costs in both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-148/16 P, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE)

(Case T-181/16)

(2016/C 222/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guinot SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASTER PRECISE’ — Application for registration No 11 567 203

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2911/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 April 2016 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (ECOLAB)

(Case T-150/16)

(2016/C 211/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ecolab USA, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and C. Menebröcker, 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 mark ‘ECOLAB’ — Application for registration No 1 180 255

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 in Case R 644/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(2) of EUTMR;

— Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/34

Action brought on 10 March 2016 — Messe Friedrichshafen v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (Out Door)

(Case T-224/16)

(2016/C 232/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Messe Friedrichshafen GmbH (Friedrichshafen, Germany) (represented by: W. Schulte Hemming, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Messe Friedrichshafen GmbH

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in black, yellow and orange containing the word element ‘Out Door’ — Application for registration No 6 938 864

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 in Case R 2302/2011-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it refuses the registration of the trade mark ‘Out Door’ (Registration No: 006938864) in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 28, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43 and 45;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it refuses the trade mark ‘Out Door’ (Registration No: 006938864) in respect of the following goods and services in class 35: ‘arranging and conducting of congresses, conferences, seminars and workshops, trade fairs and exhibitions for commercial and advertising purposes, including on the Internet and other electronic media; organisation of participation in exhibitions; sales promotion and brokering of trade, service and business contacts and commercial transactions for consumer goods and industrial products on the Internet and other electronic media, including by means of a virtual trade fair; providing and rental of floor space and exhibition stands, including associated equipment (included in this class); advertising for exhibitors; decoration of exhibition stands and platforms’;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, a breach of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU, in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law by finding that the aid to Ryanair and AMS was equal to the cumulated marginal losses of the airport (as calculated by the Commission) instead of the actual benefit to Ryanair and AMS. The Commission should have examined the extent to which the alleged benefit had actually been passed on to Ryanair’s passengers. Further, it failed to quantify any competitive advantage that Ryanair enjoyed through the alleged aid, and it failed to explain properly why the recovery of the amount of aid specified in the decision was necessary to ensure the re-establishment of the situation prior to the grant of the aid.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/43

Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Haverkamp v EUIPO — Sissel (Pebble beach surface pattern)

(Case T-228/16)

(2016/C 243/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Reinhard Haverkamp (Kindberg, Austria) (represented by: A. Waldenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sissel GmbH (Bad Dürkheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the design ‘Pebble beach surface pattern’ — International registration designating the European Union No DM/072198-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2016 in Case R 2619/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings, the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the invalidity proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/37

Action brought on 22 April 2016 – Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik v EUIPO – Viña y Bodega Botalcura (LITU)

(Case T-187/16)

(2016/C 243/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Viña y Bodega Botalcura SA (Las Condes, Chile)

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: EU word mark ‘LITU’ – Application for registration No 12 684 833

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2016 in Case R 719/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— deliver a judgment accepting the action, fully annulling the contested decision;

— order to dismiss the European Union Trademark Application for the word mark LITU in relation to all the goods;

— order that the Defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings should bear the fees and costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/45

Action brought on 30 May 2016 – Pempe v EUIPO – Marshall Amplification (THOMAS MARSHALL GARMENTS OF LEGENDS)

(Case T-271/16)

(2016/C 251/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Yusuf Pempe (Créteil, France) (represented by: A. Vivès-Albertini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marshall Amplification plc (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘THOMAS MARSHALL GARMENTS OF LEGENDS’ – Application for registration No 11 570 264

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2016 in Case R 376/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the oppostion in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/62

Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-287/16)

(2016/C 270/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J. C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, and by É. Grégoire and J. Mariani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016, in so far as it excludes from European Union financing in relation to the Kingdom of Belgium an amount of EUR 9 601 619,00 (budget item 6701);

— in the alternative, partially annul that decision to exclude from European Union financing the amount of EUR 9 601 619 in so far as it includes the sum of EUR 4 106 470,02 from which the EAGF has already benefited;

— order the Commission 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 an infringement of Article 31(1) and Article 32(8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), on the ground that the Commission fails to show that the expenditure effected by the Belgian paying agency is not compatible with EU law and that the failure to recover or the unlawfulness was caused by irregularity or negligence attributable to the Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (the Belgian Intervention and Restitution Board) (BIRB).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/31

Action brought on 13 May 2016 — Aurora Group Danmark A/S v EUIPO — Retail Distribution ApS (PANZER)

(Case T-246/16)

(2016/C 279/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Aurora Group Danmark A/S (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: L. Elmgaard Sørensen)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Retail Distribution ApS (Hinnerup, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘PANZER’ — European Union trade mark No 12 111 084

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 in Case R 447/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision in respect of ‘Computers, mobile phones, smart phones and other portable and handheld electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating and reviewing text, data, image and audio files; phone charms; scratch protectors; protective casing and covers for mobile phones, smart phones, computers and other portable and handheld electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating and reviewing text, data, image and audio files; holders, cases and covers for mobile phones, smart phones, computers and other portable and handheld electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating and reviewing text, data, image and audio files; parts, fittings and accessories for mobiles phones, smart phones, computers and other portable and handheld electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating and reviewing text, data, image and audio files’;

— Order the EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine as well as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, insofar as these acts retain the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to restrictive measures;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/23

Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Beyond Scale)

(Case T-252/16)

(2016/C 287/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cleversafe, Inc. (Chicago, Illinois, États-Unis d'Amérique) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Beyond Scale’ — Application for registration No 13 975 438

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 2239/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/33

Action brought on 15 June 2016 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (360o)

(Case T-333/16)

(2016/C 296/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler and A. Stolz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘360o’ — Application for registration No 14 042 188

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2016 in Case R 2287/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law