ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/40

Action brought on 25 August 2017 — Asics v EUIPO — Van Lieshout textile Agenturen (Representation of four crossing lines)

(Case T-581/17)

(2017/C 374/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Asics Corporation (Kobe, Japan) (represented by: M. Polo Carreño, M. Granado Carpenter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Van Lieshout textiel Agenturen BV (Berkel-Enschot, The Netherlands)

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 figurative mark (Representation of four crossing lines) — Application for registration No 11 952 678

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2017 in Case R 2129/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the reimbursement of its costs in this appeal before the General Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Breach of the duty of the Board to revise the legality of the first instance decision;

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/48

Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Top Cable v Commission and SRB

(Case T-630/17)

(2017/C 374/72)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Top Cable, SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

— Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

— Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

— Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
—

The defendant failed to establish that BPA is an endocrine disrupting substance for which there is scientific evidence of probable serious effects to human health or the environment which give rise to an equivalent level of concern to those of other substances listed in points (a) to (e) of Article 57 of the REACH Regulation, considering that (i) the defendant has only sought to establish that BPA has alleged ‘endocrine disrupting properties’, (ii) the identification of BPA does not meet the criteria laid out in Article 57(f) of the REACH Regulation and the general principles of EU law, and (iii) the Defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to consider the derivation of a safe level as a relevant factor for the assessment of BPA towards the criteria of Article 57(f) of the REACH Regulation; and
—

Annul the resolution decision concerning the Banco Popular, on grounds of serious and irreparable irregularities that result in the invalidity of that decision, in that (i) it is based on a Deloitte report which was not independent, (ii) shareholders are subjected to much more significant losses than they would be had an arrangement with creditors been entered into and (iii) the bail-in tool was not applied.
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of protection of whistle-blowers as defined by Articles 22(a), Article 22(b) of the Staff Regulations, Article 6(1) of the Internal Rules and the respective interest of the Union.
7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that, given that the Commission adopted the contested regulation with reference to a request from Croatia to include the wine grape variety ‘Teran’ in Part A of Annex XV of Commission Regulation No 607/2009 — a request that Croatia should have made before its accession to the EU — even though no such request was in fact made, and Slovenia was not informed of any such request for the purpose of opening negotiations, the Commission infringed the second subparagraph of Article 100(3) of Single CMO Regulation No 1308/2013 and Article 62(3) of Commission Regulation No 607/2009 in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU. In the same way, the Commission has thus exceeded the power conferred on it by the aforementioned provision of Single CMO Regulation No 1308/2013.
—

Take note of the lodging of the action for annulment of the Single Resolution Board’s decision to seize the shares of Banco Popular and give judgment annulling that decision and, in consequence, returning to my client its Popular shares and other capital instruments or, in the alternative, order the payment of compensation corresponding to the net value of its Popular assets as of 22 May 2017, valued at EUR 26675424.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/48

Action brought on 25 September 2017 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials)

(Case T-656/17)

(2017/C 402/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: 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: EU word mark containing the word elements ‘Dr. Jacob’s essentials’ in orange, yellow and shades of green — Application for registration No 13 742 903

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2017 in Case R 2067/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/46

Action brought on 28 September 2017 — Turbo-K International v EUIPO — Turbo-K (TURBO-K)

(Case T-671/17)

(2017/C 424/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Turbo-K International Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Norris, A. Muir Wood, Barristers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Turbo-K Ltd (Winchester, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TURBO-K’ — Application for registration No 13 458 039

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2017 in Case R 2135/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject the objections to the registration of the mark in their entirety;

— order the payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, concerning a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A., infringes the nemo auditur turpitudinem opropiam allegans principle and Article 88 of Regulation No 806/2014, in that a crisis that SRB itself triggered has led to the adoption of an act adversely affecting Banco Popular and its shareholders.
7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58; Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations and Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations; and of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU (failure to state reasons), as well as infringement of the principle of proportionality and distortion of the facts. — The applicant claims in this respect that the Commission has used the requirement that new recruits be capable immediately of communicating within the institutions as a means of justifying the ‘three languages’ restriction. That justification distorts the facts because it is not the case that the three languages in question are the ones most used for communication between different language groups within the institutions, and it is disproportionate in regard to the restriction of a fundamental right such as the right not to suffer discrimination on grounds of language when less restrictive arrangements exist for ensuring effective communication within the institutions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/27

Action brought on 30 October 2017 — Trasys International and Axianseu Digital Solutions v EASA

(Case T-741/17)

(2018/C 013/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Trasys International GEIE (Brussels, Belgium) and Axianseu Digital Solutions SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: L. Masson and G. Tilman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Form of order sought

The parties claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision taken on 28 August 2017 for the European Aviation Safety Agency by its director, in the context of the contract entitled ‘EASA.2017.HVP.08: IT Application & Infrastructure Management Services — ITAIMS’ …;

— consequently, annul the implied decision not to award the various framework contracts to the applicants;

— order the EASA to pay the entire costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons in the contested decision, with a price which appears to be abnormally low.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/48

Action brought on 5 October 2017 — OCU v SRB

(Case T-701/17)

(2018/C 005/66)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios (OCU) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Martínez Martínez and C. López-Mélida de Ramón, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EES/2017/08) and the independent expert’s valuation on which it is based in accordance with Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014;

— Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;

— Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/60

Action brought on 29 November 2017 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (C del Mar)

(Case T-774/17)

(2018/C 022/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Café del Mar SC (Sant Antoni de Portmany, Spain) José Les Viamonte (Sant Antoni de Portmany) and Carlos Andrea González (Sant Antoni de Portmany) (represented by: F. Miazzetto and J.L. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, 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: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘C del M’ — European Union trade mark No 5 889 126

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2017 in Case R 1618/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘C del M’ No 5 889 126 invalid;

— order the defendant to bear the costs of the present proceedings and the proprietor of the trade mark at issue to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/26

Action brought on 2 November 2017 — GMPO v Commission

(Case T-733/17)

(2018/C 013/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GMP-Orphan (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Demetriou, QC, E. Mackenzie, barrister, L. Tsang and J. Mulryne, solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 5 of Commission Implementing Decision of 5 September 2017 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) for ‘Cuprior-trientine’, a medicinal product for human use;

— order the defendant to provide that Cuprior be classified as an orphan medicinal product and the Community Register of Orphan Medicinal Products updated accordingly; and

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that Article 5 of the contested decision was based upon an erroneous interpretation of the term ‘significant benefit’ in Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 141/2000 (‘the Orphan Regulation’). — The Committee for Orphan Medical Products (COMP)/Commission erred by failing to recognise — in line with the aims of the harmonised pharmaceutical legislation as a whole, and the wording of the Orphan Regulation specifically — that the greater availability of Cuprior across the EU constituted a significant benefit for the purposes of the legislation.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the COMP/Commission misdirected itself in law and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in applying Article 3(1)(b) of the Orphan Regulation. — The COMP/Commission failed to recognise that any problem with the availability of trientine in the EU would automatically result in patients having unmet needs or suffering harm (although it was not in fact necessary for the applicant to demonstrate patient harm under the applicable guidance).

3. Third plea in law, alleging an error in law and/or a breach of the principles of legitimate expectations and/or procedural fairness in applying later guidance to the designation and review of Cuprior. — The applicant alleges that the COMP/Commission acted unfairly and/or breached the applicant’s legitimate expectations by in substance applying the guidance of 2016 rather than that of 2003.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the COMP/Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in evaluating and rejecting the evidence put forward by the applicant as to the lack of availability of trientine.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/35

Action brought on 13 November 2017 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Beats Electronics (i.Beat jump)

(Case T-746/17)

(2018/C 032/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong-Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, M. Alber, A. Schönfleisch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beats Electronics LLC (Culver City, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘i.Beat jump’ EU trade mark No 4 729 075

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2017 in Case R 2236/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as it upholds the Cancellation Applicant’s application for revocation and revokes the Applicant’s rights in respect of European Union trade mark No 4 729 075

— dismiss the Cancellation Applicant’s application for revocation;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/56

Action brought on 21 November 2017 — Septona v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (welly)

(Case T-763/17)

(2018/C 022/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Septona AVEE (Oinofyta, Greece) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘welly’ — Application for registration No 13 085 519

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 in Case R 1525/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/43

Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest)

(Case T-803/17)

(2018/C 042/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ORIGINAL excellent dermatest’ — Application for registration No 15 073 364

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 526/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in relation to the assessment of the economic nature of the activities carried out by the French ports. The applicant claims that the Commission also erred in law in its analysis of the economic nature of the activities carried out by the French ports, in two respects: — In the first place, in that it totally failed to address in the contested decision some of the activities carried out by the French ports; — in the second place, in that, with regard to several other activities of the French ports, it merely reiterated the general principles derived from the case-law of the ECJ concerning public financing of port infrastructures without reaching a conclusion as to whether or not they are economic in nature although that is, it is claimed, the criterion for applying the State aid rules.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/37

Action brought on 05 December 2017 — St. Andrews Links v EUIPO (ST ANDREWS)

(Case T-790/17)

(2018/C 042/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: St. Andrews Links Ltd (St. Andrews, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Hattier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ST ANDREWS’ — Application for registration No 9 586 348

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2017 in Case R 92/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— consider the present appeal admissible;

— annul the contested decision insofar as it dismissed the appeal for the following services in class 41: ‘Arranging and conducting entertainment conferences, congresses, events, competitions and seminars; Club services (entertainment or education); Providing a website featuring information regarding conferences, congresses, events, competitions and seminars; Special event planning; Organization of cultural events and of exhibitions for cultural or educational purposes, Publication of books, electronic books and journals on-line; Vocational guidance and instructions services (education or training advice)’;

— allow the European Union trademark application No. 9 586 348 for registration for the above-mentioned services; and

— order EUIPO to bear the fees and costs incurred by the Applicant in the course of the present proceeding.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/19

Action brought on 27 December 2017 — Coesia v EUIPO (Representation of a circular shape consisting of two oblique red lines)

(Case T-829/17)

(2018/C 063/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Coesia SpA (Bologna, Italy) (represented by S. Rizzo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a circular shape consisting of two oblique red lines) — Application for registration No 13 681 151.

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2017 in Case R 1272/2017-5.

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 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;