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

Action brought on 30 December 2019 – Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO – Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials)

(Case T-879/19)

(2020/C 61/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: A. de Sampaio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ludwig Manfred Jacob (Heidesheim, 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 figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials – Application for registration No 13 742 903

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2019 in Case R 1025/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 December 2019 — Tetra v EUIPO — Neusta next (Wave)

(Case T-869/19)

(2020/C 61/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Tetra GmbH (Melle, Germany) (represented by: E. Kessler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Neusta next GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Wave — EU trade mark No 12 324 042

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 in Case R 2440/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and the declaration that EU trade mark No 12 324 042 is invalid;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Impera v EUIPO — Euro Games Technology (Flaming Forties)

(Case T-875/19)

(2020/C 129/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Impera GmbH (Steinhaus, Austria) (represented by: C. Straberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Euro Games Technology Ltd (Vranya-Lozen-Triugulnika, Bulgaria)

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 Flaming Forties — Application for registration No 16 761 769

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2019 in Case R 2321/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— allow the applicant’s European Union trade mark application No 16 761 769 in its entirety or in the alternative, remit the proceedings to the Board of Appeal;

— order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if acting as intervener, to pay the applicant’s costs;

— order EUIPO, if the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal is not being allocated to costs, to pay the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law
—

order any and all measures of investigation, in particular, a medical report from an independent medical expert for the purposes of assessing whether the applicant’s state of health corresponds to the performance of her duties in the last post occupied with [confidential] or, alternatively, any other post corresponding to her grade and her qualifications or, alternatively, any other post commensurate with her strengths and abilities with the Commission;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 January 2020 – adp Gauselmann v EUIPO – Gameloft (GAMELAND)

(Case T-17/20)

(2020/C 68/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gameloft SE (Paris, France)

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 GAMELAND – Application for registration No 15 722 648

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5th November 2019 in Case R 2502/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— admit the claim;

— annul the contested decision;

— order to accept the European Union Trademark Application No. 15 722 648;

— order EUIPO and the opposing party to bear the fees and costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 January 2020 – Monster Energy v EUIPO – Nanjing aisiyou Clothing (Device of a claw-like scratch)

(Case T-35/20)

(2020/C 68/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanjing aisiyou Clothing Co. Ltd (Nanjing City, China)

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 figurative mark representing a device of a claw-like scratch – Application for registration No 17 634 478

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 November 2019 in Case R 1104/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 March 2019 in Opposition B 3050458;

— reject the opposed mark for the contested goods and services, being all goods and services covered by the application;

— order the defendant to bear its own costs of the proceedings and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 February 2020 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ LONDON)

(Case T-66/20)

(2020/C 95/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hauz 1929 Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Lyberis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Houzz, Inc. (Palo Alto, 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 figurative mark HAUZ LONDON — Application for registration No 17 593 823

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 in Case R 884/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings, including those incurred before EUIPO.

Plea in law
4.

Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Articles 4 and 16 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (the ‘Staff Regulations’) and the principle of conferral of powers and the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States. The applicants submit that the Disciplinary Board and the appointing authority were required to verify the validity, in the light of Portuguese law, of the mandate of the lawyer at the hearing on 20 February 2018. They add that, in any event, once alerted to the fact that the mandate was invalid, the Disciplinary Board and the appointing authority should have drawn the necessary consequences for the disciplinary procedure, in particular as regards the applicants’ lack of acquiescence to the conduct complained of and the findings of OLAF and the investigators.
—

annul the ECB’s decision of 19 November 2019 by which the ECB refuses to comply with the request to instruct the administrator of PNB Banka to grant access to the bank, its information, staff and resources;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Alvargonzález Ramos v EUIPO — Ursus-3 Capital, A.V. (URSUS Kapital)

(Case T-114/20)

(2020/C 129/22)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Pablo Erik Alvargonzález Ramos (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ursus-3 Capital, A.V., SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark URSUS Kapital — European Union trade mark No 5 641 303

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2019 in Case R 711/202019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— deliver a judgment amending the contested decision and dismissing the application for a declaration of invalidity for non-use brought against the registered European Union trade mark No 5 641 303 URSUS Kapital (figurative) in relation to ‘financial affairs’ in Class 36 and declare that trade mark No 5 641 303 has been genuinely used for ‘financial affairs’;

— in the alternative, deliver a judgment which, in addition to amending the contested decision, dismissing the application for a declaration of invalidity for non-use brought against the registered European Union trade mark No 5 641 303 URSUS Kapital (figurative) in relation to ‘financial affairs’ in Class 36, declares that trade mark No 5 641 303 has been genuinely used at least for ‘financial affairs, namely investment services, investment of funds, investment analysis, investment management and administration, investment advice and real estate investment services’.

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Articles 18 and 58 Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 10 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 February 2020 — Qx World v EUIPO — Mandelay (EDUCTOR)

(Case T-84/20)

(2020/C 114/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Qx World Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. László and A. Cserny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mandelay Kft. (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

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 EDUCTOR — European Union trade mark No 11 043 296

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2019 in Case R 1310/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision in a way to annul the first instance decision and remit the case to EUIPO’s Cancellation Division for further prosecution;

— as an alternative, annul both the contested decision and the first instance decision and remit the case to EUIPO’s Cancellation Division for further prosecution.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-101/20)

(2020/C 129/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf 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) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 3 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 3 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] 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-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Ruhorimbere v Council

(Case T-105/20)

(2020/C 129/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Éric Ruhorimbere (Mbuji-Mayi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf 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) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 10 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 10 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] 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-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 March 2020 — Tornado Boats International v EUIPO — Haygreen (TORNADO)

(Case T-167/20)

(2020/C 175/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tornado Boats International ApS (Lystrup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Hoffgaard Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: David Haygreen (Colwyn Bay, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark TORNADO — European Union trade mark No 10 097 368

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2020 in Case R 1169/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the cancellation.

Plea in law
Action brought on 26 February 2020 — Applia v Commission

(Case T-142/20)

(2020/C 161/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Applia — Home Appliance Europe (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Desmedt, L. Salernitano and K. Olsthoorn, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the following parts of the contested act: (i) Article 1(b), of Annex VI in the part where it provides that ‘these values are considered as the declared values for the purpose of the verification procedure in Annex IX’; (ii) paragraph 3(2)(a) of Annex IX in the part where it states that ‘declared values’ correspond to those ‘values given in the technical documentation’; and (iii) paragraph 3(2)(b) of Annex IX;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2017 (1).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging the contested act violates Articles 3, 12 and 16 of the Framework Regulation (2) and the Commission acted ultra vires by introducing inconsistent requirements as regards the technical documentation suppliers have to upload in the database and the verification procedure market surveillance authorities are entitled to carry out.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the contested act infringes the principle of legal certainty and of equality of treatment because it fails to establish a clear and univocal regulatory framework putting the suppliers in the impossibility to determine their duties, as regards the data to be provided in the technical documentation; and the applicable verification procedure to assess the accuracy of the data.

(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2017 of 11 March 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of household dishwashers and repealing Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1059/2010 (OJ 2019 L 315, p. 134).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU (OJ 2017 L 198, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 March 2020 — Himmel v EUIPO — Ramirez Monfort (Hispano Suiza)

(Case T-177/20)

(2020/C 191/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Erwin Leo Himmel (Walchwil, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Gomoll, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gonzalo Andres Ramirez Monfort (Barcelona, Spain)

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 Hispano Suiza — Application for registration No 16 389 397

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2020 in Case R 67/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 April 2020 — Chatwal v EUIPO — Timehouse Capital (THE TIME)

(Case T-186/20)

(2020/C 191/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chatwal Hotels & Resorts LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: N. Hine, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Timehouse Capital GmbH (Grasbrunn, 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 word mark THE TIME — Application for registration No 16 614 471

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 January 2020 in Case R 2264/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— refuse the opposition;

— accept the contested application;

— order EUIPO and/or the other party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 March 2020 — JA v Parliament

(Case T-156/20)

(2020/C 201/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: JA (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Principally:

— annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant;

— order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs;

In the alternative:

— find that the decision dissolving the political group ENF was unlawful;

— accordingly, annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant;

— order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies, principally, on five pleas in law that are identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-154/20, IY v Parliament.

In the alternative, the applicant pleads the unlawfulness of the decision dissolving the European political group ENF. The applicant argues that since the dissolution decision was unlawful, as it was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and a misuse of powers, the dismissal decision — which was based exclusively on that dissolution — is itself, therefore, unlawful and must be annulled.
Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment and breach of articles 12a and 24 SR.

On the request for compensation, the applicant exposes the fault committed by the defendant, the damage she suffered and the link between the fault and the damage.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 April 2020 — Frommer v EUIPO — Minerva (I-cosmetics)

(Case T-205/20)

(2020/C 201/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Angela Frommer (Unterschleißheim, Germany) (represented by: F. Remmertz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark I-cosmetics — European Union trade mark No 8 836 661

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2020 in Case R 675/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party, if it joins the proceedings, to pay the costs, including those incurred by the Applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality and free movement of services that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. The decision of the Commission ignores the role of such pan-European airlines in the connectivity of EU Member States by allowing Sweden to reserve aid only to those EU airlines to which Sweden has issued EU operating licenses. Article 107(3)(b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU.