ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 475/24

Action brought on 8 November 2016 — Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo "Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ v EUIPO — ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ (Representation of a crayfish)

(Case T-775/16)

(2016/C 475/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo "Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: R. Žabolienė and I. Lukauskienė, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joint-Stock Company ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ (Moscow, Russia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union No 1 191 921

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 in Case R 2419/2015-1

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 462/29

Action brought on 7 October 2016 — Asolo v EUIPO — Red Bull (FLÜGEL)

(Case T-714/16)

(2016/C 462/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Asolo LTD (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: W. Pors, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FLÜGEL’ — EU trade mark No 637 686

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 July 2016 in Case R 282/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity;

— order EUIPO and Red Bull to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/48

Action brought on 7 November 2006 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-766/16)

(2017/C 006/60)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: S. Rating and Y. Martínez Mata, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul European Commission Decision C (2016) 4060 final; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision, in so far as it relates to Hércules, concerns a loan of EUR 18 million granted by a private body to the Fundación de la Comunidad Valenciana Hércules de Alicante, another private body, which used a substantial share of the amount loaned to subscribe for shares in Hércules CF in the context of a capital increase. That loan was guaranteed by a public financial body, namely the Institut Valencià de Finances.

The Commission claims that, as a result of that transaction, Hércules CF benefitted from State aid, amounting to the difference between the actual costs of the guaranteed loan and the costs which it would have incurred under ostensible market conditions, that difference being updated from the date on which the loan was issued to the date of the decision.

In support of the action, the applicant invokes three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging misapplication of the Commission notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees. — The applicant claims in this respect that it was not ‘a firm in difficulty’ within the meaning of the 2004 Guidelines and that the loan granted took into account the risk of default and the collateral of the loan.

2. Second plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging the lack of effect on competition and trade between Member States. — Hercules CF claims in this respect that it was unable to compete in Europe and that the alleged aid did not confer upon it any competitive advantage.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/54

Action brought on 9 November 2016 — Krasnyiy oktyabr v EUIPO — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (CRABS)

(Case T-795/16)

(2017/C 006/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (Kiev, Ukraine)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: 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 containing the word element ‘CRABS’ — Application for registration No 1 186 110

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 in Case R 2507/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 3(2) and 3(5) of the Basic Regulation and Article 3.1 of the ADA, distorted the evidence before it and made manifest errors of assessment, by wrongly assessing the injury indicators and not carrying out an objective examination of the state of the Union industry. According to the Applicant, the Commission relied only on selected economic indicators of the state of the Union industry and neglected key indicators which would have revealed a different, more positive state of the Union industry. The Applicant further puts forward that the Commission took a biased approach favoring its injury findings and distorting evidence before it by failing to examine the ‘free’ and ‘captive’ markets of the product concerned as a whole and together for all indicators, and choosing to make a separate ‘three-way assessment’ which distorted the overall assessment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/52

Action brought on 14 November 2016 — Real Madrid Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-791/16)

(2017/C 014/62)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Real Madrid Club de Fútbol (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Pérez-Bustamante and F. Löwhagen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present application admissible;

— annul, in its entirety, the Commission decision of 4 July 2016 in Case SA.33754 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision in the present case, the Commission considered that a transfer of land between Real Madrid and Madrid City Council constituted State aid, in so far as the land to which the transaction related had been overvalued by EUR 18,4 million.

The contested decision arises from the non-compliance, by Madrid City Council, with the 1998 implementing agreement, under which it undertook to transfer to Real Madrid CF plot B-32 in Las Tablas. Madrid City Council and Real Madrid CF remedied that situation by the 2011 settlement agreement under which compensation was awarded to Real Madrid FC in the form of the transfer of the abovementioned land.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1), TFEU — In that regard, the applicant submits that the Commission committed manifest errors when it concluded that the 2011 settlement agreement conferred an economic advantage on the applicant and thus constituted State aid in its favour. By the 2011 settlement agreement, Madrid City Council merely recognised its responsibility for the non-compliance with the 1998 implementing agreement. Furthermore, the Commission did not take into account, in applying the principle of the private market economy operator, of the fact that options other than the 2011 settlement agreement, such as defending a legal action, would have been much more onerous for the city council.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of article 107(1) TFEU and the general principle of sound administration. — In that regard, the applicant submits that the Commission has made serious errors of assessment by basing its conclusions on an expert opinion with no probative value and by rejecting the other valuations of plot B-32 included in the file without having sought the opinion of its own assessor or any other expert with the relevant qualifications.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/50

Action brought on 21 November 2016 — KiK Textilien und Non-Food v EUIPO — FF Group Romania (_kix)

(Case T-822/16)

(2017/C 022/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: KiK Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany) (represented by: S. Körber and L. Pechan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: FF Group Romania SRL (Bucharest, Romania)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark with the word element ‘_kix’ — EU trade mark No 12 517 901

Procedure before EUIPO: opposition proceedings

Contested decision: decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2016 in Case R 2323/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— infringement of the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(2), second indent, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — The applicants assert that the contested decision violates the abovementioned provision and that, contrary to that decision, the documents to which access is requested do pertain to the applicants’ file and are not, therefore, excluded from the scope of that provision.
—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06 of 15 April 2016 (‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06)’), as well as the decision of the Single Resolution Board SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13 of 20 May 2016 (‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’), at least in so far as those decisions concern the applicant;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/47

Action brought on 16 November 2016 — IPPT PAN v Commission and REA

(Case T-805/16)

(2017/C 022/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Instytut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki Polskiej Akademii Nauk (IPPT PAN) (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Le Berre, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission, Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested Commission decision;

— declare that the Commission erred in issuing debit note No 3241514040 (as reduced by credit note No 3233160082) and that the corresponding amount of EUR 67 984,13 is not due by the applicant;

— declare that the Commission and REA shall pay to the applicant under the project SMART-NEST the amount of EUR 69 623,94 together with interest from the date of the decision;

— declare that the applicant should not pay liquidated damages to the Commission with regard to the projects KMM-NOE and BOOSTING BALTIC;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for annulment based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 47 and 43 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on access to justice and access to the Ombudsman.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of the contracts for projects KMM-NOE, BOOSTING BALTIC and SMART-NEST and of applicable Belgian law.

3. Third plea in law, alleging breach of the Financial Regulation and of the Commission delegated Financial Regulation.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging misuse of power by the Commission.

In support of the action for contractual remedies based on Article 272 TFEU, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the applicant has satisfied its obligation under article II.19.1 of the contracts for the projects KMM NOE and BOOSTING BALTIC.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has not provided evidence in support of its claim.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has not validly established its claim.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has not implemented its contractual rights in good faith.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that liquidated damages claimed under Article II.30 are excessive and should be reduced under Article 1231 of the Belgian Civil Code.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/52

Action brought on 9 December 2016 — Karelia v EUIPO (KARELIA)

(Case T-878/16)

(2017/C 038/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ino Karelia (Kalamata, Greece) (represented by: M. Karpathakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘KARELIA’ — Application for registration No 964 502

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2016 in Case R 1562/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes (i) the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations by ordering the recovery of the alleged aid, taking into account that, in the light of the action of the Spanish administration and the duration of the proceedings, FC Barcelona could entertain a legitimate expectation as to the legality of the tax system to which it was subject, and (ii) the fundamental requirement of legal certainty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/28

Action brought on 20 December 2016 — Starbucks (HK) v EUIPO — Now Wireless (nowwireless)

(Case T-908/16)

(2017/C 046/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Starbucks (HK) Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: P. Kavanagh, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Now Wireless Ltd (Whyteleafe, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘nowwireless’ — Application for registration No 6 782 569

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 October 2016 in Case R 662/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, as well the decision given by the Opposition Division;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/39

Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap (REPOWER)

(Case T-842/16)

(2017/C 038/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘REPOWER’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 020 351

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 in Case R 2311/2014-5

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) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

declare that the Commission Decision of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN), granted by Spain to certain football clubs, infringes Articles 107(1) and 108(3) of the TFEU, since the possibility of consolidating accounts brought about by the authorisation of four clubs to participate in different sports under Law 10/1990, as well as the application of the reduced tax rate under the same corporate tax, also constitute State aid incompatible with the internal market and, therefore, should be declared to be such by the European Commission.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 107 TFEU and failure to state reasons in respect of the classification as State aid of the loan guarantees granted by the IVF to the Fundación Elche CF. The Commission has not demonstrated imputability to the State, that it has conferred an advantage and that that advantage is selective and has not evaluated the distortion of competition nor given sufficient reasons regarding the effect on trade within the European Economic Area.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/12

Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday)

(Case T-900/16)

(2017/C 095/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Casual Dreams, SLU (Manresa, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Ángel López Fernández (Fuensalida, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘Dayaday’ — Application for registration No 13 243 563

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2016 in Case R 375/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal adopted on 6 October 2016 in Case R 375/2016-2 dismissing in part the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO No B 2 469 545 of 17 December 2015;

— dismiss the application for registration of the EU trademark No 13 243 563 filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal for all the goods in Class 9 and the portion of the goods in Classes 16 and 24 in respect of which the Second Board of Appeal has dismissed the appeal;

— in the alternative, partially annul the contested decision, pursuant to Article 8(5) (EUTMR), in so far as it confirms the dismissal of the opposition and the appeal in respect of the goods in Classes 9, 16 and 24 and refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal for review in its entirety in respect of the relative ground referred to in the abovementioned article;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of potential overcompensation involved in the non-commercial railway fees to be paid by the Danish national railway operator DSB to the third party in question for the use of the Fixed Link (Construction Phase).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/44

Action brought on 17 January 2017 — Rintisch v EUIPO — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)

(Case T-25/17)

(2017/C 063/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie laitière européenne SA (Condé Sur Vire, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union No 981 041 in respect of the word mark ‘PROTICURD’

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2016 in Case R 247/2016-4

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 53/45

Action brought on 2 January 2017 — La Mafia Franchises v EUIPO — Italy (La Mafia SE SIENTA A LA MESA)

(Case T-1/17)

(2017/C 053/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: La Mafia Franchises, SL (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by I. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Republic of Italy

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘La Mafia SE SIENTA A LA MESA’ — EU trade mark No 5 510 921

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 October 2016 in Case R 803/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the contested European Union Trademark No 5 510 921 ‘LA MAFIA SE SIENTA A LA MESA’ valid;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/39

Action brought on 26 January 2017 — TDH Group v EUIPO — Comercial de Servicios Agrigan (Pet Cuisine)

(Case T-46/17)

(2017/C 078/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: TDH Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Chen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Comercial de Servicios Agrigan, SA (Huesca, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union No 1 203 373 in respect of figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Pet Cuisine’

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 November 2016 in Case R 685/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law