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

Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (Device of a combination of lines in black and white forming the angle of a cube)

(Case T-501/21)

(2021/C 391/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Device of a combination of lines in black and white forming the angle of a cube) — Application for registration No 18 252 130

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 June 2021 in Case R 79/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the perception of the relevant consumers;
2.

Second plea in law: The ground for exclusion laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the applicant’s right of access. That ground for exclusion is limited in time and applies only to pending court proceedings and legal advice. The pending proceedings in Belgium against AstraZeneca under No 2021/48/C relate to a substantially different set of facts and have already been disposed of by the judgment of 18 June 2021. The conditions for infringing the principles of equality of arms and sound administration of justice are not fulfilled either, since any proceedings that might be affected have already been disposed of.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)

(Case T-547/21)

(2021/C 422/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy)

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 R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services — European Union trade mark No 12 313 797

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2021 in Case R 1545/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— stay the proceeding until a final judgement has been taken in the proceeding before the court of Milan against the Italian trade mark 933481 ROCHEM MARINE (fig.);

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision, ordering that the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO renders a new decision, refusing the declaration of invalidation filed against the European Union trade mark registration No 12 313 797 R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services (word) against the classes 11 and 40;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should the latter appear before the Court, to bear their own costs and the fees and costs of the applicant.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, arguing that the complaint of 2 February 2021 is admissible. The applicant submits that the complaint lodged is admissible on the ground that the decision of 30 March 2020 was not an administrative decision that could be the subject of an action and that, consequently, the view could legitimately be taken that it was merely a letter informing her of the steps to be taken following the death of her spouse.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 September 2021 — Kalypso Media Group v EUIPO (COMMANDOS)

(Case T-550/21)

(2021/C 431/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kalypso Media Group GmbH (Worms, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark COMMANDOS — Application for registration No 18 062 634

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2021 in Case R 1864/2020-2

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 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 September 2021 — Brand Energy Holdings v EUIPO (RAPIDGUARD)

(Case T-573/21)

(2021/C 431/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Brand Energy Holdings BV (Vlaardingen, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Hönninger and F. Dechent, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark RAPIDGUARD — Application for registration No 18 156 550

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2021 in Case R 294/2021-5

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 42(1) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 September 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-577/21)

(2021/C 462/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain), Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design No 1 431 829-0007

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 July 2021 in Case R 1010/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision to: — allow the applicant’s appeal, — dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicants’ applications to declare the contested design invalid, — order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;

— order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s fees and costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155);

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172);

— Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 September 2021 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino)

(Case T-558/21)

(2021/C 452/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Milbradt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Papouis Dairies LTD (Nicosia)

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 fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese — Application for registration No 11 180 791

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2021 in Case R 578/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the EUIPO to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 September 2021 — B&Bartoni v EUIPO — Hypertherm (Welding torches (part of -))

(Case T-617/21)

(2021/C 471/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: B&Bartoni spol. s r.o. (Dolní Cetno, Czech Republic) (represented by: E. Lachmannová, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hypertherm, Inc. (Hanover, New Hampshire, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: European Union design 1 292 122-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 July 2021 in Case R 2843/2019-3

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 20 September 2021 — Kubara v EUIPO (good calories)

(Case T-602/21)

(2021/C 462/69)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Kubara sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: A. Suskiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark good calories — Application No 18 193 512

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2021 in Case R 2167/2020-1

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 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the principle of legal certainty arising from the registration by EUIPO of the signs ‘Fit calories’ and ‘GREEN CALORIES’ as EU trade marks;
Action brought on 16 September 2021 — Serrano Velázquez v Parliament

(Case T-589/21)

(2021/C 481/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: María Teresa Serrano Velázquez (Seville, Spain) (represented by: F. Vázquez Sánchez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament given in respect of Petition 0242/21 by María Teresa Serrano Velázquez, and investigate the matters raised therein.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the decision is not correctly reasoned in accordance with the provisions of Article 296 TFEU.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 September 2021 — Automobiles Citroën v EUIPO Polestar (Device of two inverted chevrons)

(Case T-608/21)

(2021/C 471/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Automobiles Citroën (Poissy, France) (represented by: C. Weyl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Polestar Holding AB (Götenborg, Sweden)

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 (Device of two inverted chevrons) — European Union trade mark No 16 898 173

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 July 2021 in Case R 502/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— 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 29 September 2021 — Tequila Revolución v EUIPO — Horizons Group (London) (Revolution Vodka)

(Case T-628/21)

(2021/C 490/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Tequila Revolución (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Horizons Group (London) Ltd (Reading, United Kingdom)

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 the EU word mark Revolution Vodka — Application for registration No 17 948 886

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2021 in Case R 2266/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— find that the contested decision unfounded;

— find that the contested decision must be annulled and that the use of the applicant’s trade mark is real and sufficient;

— where appropriate, find that the opposition to the trade mark Revolution Vodka is well founded;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

annul the contested decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts of Employment (AECE) of EASO No EASO/EDD/2021/112 of 25 July 2021 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 26 March 2021 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 October 2021 — Target Brands v EUIPO — The Art Company B & S (art class)

(Case T-676/21)

(2021/C 502/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Target Brands, Inc. (Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Art Company B & S, SA (Quel, 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 art class — Application for registration No 16 888 737

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 August 2021 in Case R 1596/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal as well as the Opposition Division.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 November 2021 — Rolex v EUIPO — PWT (Device of a crown)

(Case T-726/21)

(2022/C 11/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rolex SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PWT A/S (Aalborg, Denmark)

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 mark (Representation of a crown) — International registration designating the European Union No 1 263 679

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 August 2021 in Case R 2389/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs, or in the alternative (if the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes) that EUIPO and the other party do severally and jointly pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging compatibility of the aid with the derogation provided for by Article 106(2) TFEU — Infringement of law — Infringement of the obligation to state reasons — The applicant claims in that regard that the decision of 17 June 2021 is, in any event, vitiated by a manifest error of interpretation and application of EU legislation and by the infringement of the defendant’s obligation to state reasons, in so far as the Commission — without carrying out any examination in that regard — ruled out the compatibility of the aid in favour of Società Navigazione Siciliana SCpA with the derogation provided for by Article 106(2) TFEU for services of general economic interest (SGEIs).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 October 2021 — Ekobulkos v Commission

(Case T-702/21)

(2022/C 24/59)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant:‘Ekobulkos’ EOOD (Todorichene, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Dimitrov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the European Commission unlawfully failed to take action with regard to ‘Ekobulkos’ EOOD’s complaint SA.56620 (2020/FC);

— order the Commission to pay the legal costs of ‘Ekobulkos’ EOOD;

— in the alternative, if the Commission takes a decision on the complaint after the present action has been brought, order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. The Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations to monitor aid granted by the Member States, pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU.

2. The Commission failed to examine without undue delay the company’s complaint SA.56620 (2020/FC) of 21 February 2020 concerning possible unlawful aid in accordance with Article 12(1), second subparagraph, of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. (1)

3. The Commission failed to take the necessary decision in accordance with Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, by which it should have: — declared that the notified measure does not constitute aid, or — declared that the measure is compatible with the internal market, or — initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU (‘decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure’).

4. The Commission failed to send a copy of the decision to the complainant pursuant to Article [24](2), third subparagraph, of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.

5. The Commission failed to take the necessary measures also after being called upon to do so on 22 June 2021, in accordance with Article 265 TFEU.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Skryba v Council

(Case T-581/21)

(2022/C 11/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Siarheï Skryba (Marialivo, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.

(1) OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3.

(2) OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition on retroactivity and the incorrect use of stricter conditions in connection with participation in the project. — The applicant claims that the defendant cannot refer to obligations stemming from a non-binding document, of whose existence the contractual parties were not aware and to the application of which they did not at any point agree. — The applicant further argues that the defendant referred to the obligations stemming from that non-binding document in breach of the contract concerned on the provision of the grant. — The applicant also argues that the defendant infringed the principle of non-retroactivity when it referred to the use of stricter formal requirements stemming from documents not drawn up until after the contract on the provision of the grant was signed.
—

order the defendants to pay (i) EUR 1 127,66 retained in the absence of any PMO individual administrative decision in respect of the recovery; (ii) EUR 9 250,05 retained for May, June, July, August, and September 2021 and (iii) EUR 1 ex aequo et bono to compensate for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the illegal conduct of the OLAF investigation OF/2016/0928/A1 which finally led to the removal from post of the applicant;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 November 2021 — EMS Electro Medical Systems v EUIPO (AIRFLOW)

(Case T-751/21)

(2022/C 64/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EMS Electro Medical Systems GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Scheib and C. Schulte, 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 AIRFLOW — Application for registration No 1 533 193

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2021 in Case R 546/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by EMS Electro Medical Systems GmbH.

Pleas in law

— Incorrect interpretation of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Incorrect interpretation of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging the violation by the defendant of Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of the Commission Decision of 15 April 2014 on general implementing provisions concerning persons to be treated as dependent children, in so far as, in calculating the cost of the applicant’s mother’s maintenance, the defendant incorrectly estimated that the applicant’s mother’s place of residence was in Romania and not in Belgium. Furthermore, the Commission erred in determining the cost of the applicant’s mother’s maintenance as 50 % of the basic salary of an official in the first step of grade AST 1, corrected with the country coefficient for Romania, since the applicant’s mother resided permanently in the applicant’s household and, that being so, 40 % of that basic salary (with no correction) should have been considered.