ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 18 June 2019 — Datenlotsen Informationssysteme v Commission

(Case T-368/19)

(2019/C 270/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Lübbig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the defendant has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 108 TFEU in so far as it failed to close the formal investigation procedure in Case SA.34402 (2015/C ex 2012/NN) by means of a decision within a reasonable time in accordance with Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 9(1) of Regulation 2015/1589; (1)

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. Infringement of Article 108 TFEU through a failure to close the formal investigation procedure — In its first plea in law the applicant argues that the procedure length of over seven years must be held to be unreasonable. In this regard the applicant argues that, in the light of the extensive information available to the defendant and the small number of open questions, a decision should already have been taken. Further, a decision must be taken shortly due to the applicant’s urgent financial needs.

2. Infringement of the right to have one’s case heard within a reasonable period as part of the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — In its second plea in law the applicant puts forward arguments that, in essence, are identical or similar to the arguments relied on in the first plea in law.

3. Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 20 of that charter — In its third plea in law the applicant principally claims that, due to various measures leading to delays in procedure, the defendant infringed the Code of Best Practices for the conduct of State aid control procedures.

4. Infringement of the right to be given reasons as part of the right to an effective remedy under Articles 47 and 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — In its fourth plea in law the applicant argues that the defendant could not automatically have assumed that further investigation was necessary and should have substantiated and explained the need for such investigations.

(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 15 July 2019 — Workspace Group v EUIPO — Technopolis (UMA WORKSPACE)

(Case T-506/19)

(2019/C 288/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Workspace Group plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Hine, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Technopolis Oyj (Oulu, Finland)

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 UMA WORKSPACE — Application for registration No 16 443 111

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2019 in Case R 1910/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the opposition decision;

— refuse the contested application;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v SRB

(Case T-468/19)

(2019/C 295/104)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Paris, France) and the 25 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 on the calculation of the 2019 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) in so far as it concerns the applicants;

— pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (‘SRM Regulation’), the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable: — Article 69(2), Article 70(1) and Article 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; — Article 4(2), Article 6, Article 7 and Article 10 of the Delegated Regulation and Annex I thereto; — Article 4 and Article 8(5) of the Implementing Regulation;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-466/19, Société générale and Others v SRB.
—

By failing to grant the applicant birth leave rights which are equivalent to maternity leave and/or adoption leave, the contested decision violates the applicant’s fundamental rights of equal protection and non-discrimination, as enshrined in Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and Article 1(d) of the EU Staff Regulations. As homosexuals are the predominant group of parents making use of surrogacy, they are disproportionately negatively affected by the Parliament’s interpretation of the birth leave-related provisions of the EU Staff Regulations as reflected in the contested decision.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that, even assuming that the CFC measures in question constituted aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the contested decision wrongly concluded that there was no justification that could apply to defend the compatibility of the measures in question with EU State aid rules. In addition, the contested decision is irrational and inconsistent, in that the Commission has correctly accepted that Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the UK’s Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified in cases where the only reason for a CFC charge to apply is the ‘UK connected capital’ test, on the basis that that test may be excessively difficult to operate in practice, but at the same time, and without providing adequate reasoning, the Commission contends that the said Chapter 9 is never justified in cases where the significant people functions (SPF) test causes a CFC charge to apply. In fact, the SPF test is excessively difficult to apply in practice such that the Commission should have found the said Chapter 9 to be justified in the context of that test as well and hence it should have concluded that there is no State aid.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 July 2019 — EC Brand Comércio, Importação e Exportação de Vestuário em Geral v EUIPO (pantys)

(Case T-532/19)

(2019/C 312/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EC Brand Comércio, Importação e Exportação de Vestuário em Geral LTDA (Sorocaba, Brazil) (represented by: B. Bittner and U. Heinrich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark pantys– Application for registration No 17 869 310

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2019 in Case R 314/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the appeal regarding the following goods and services: — class 05: hygienic absorbents, sanitary napkins, sanitary towels, incontinence pads; — class 35: online retail trade services of women’s sanitary products;

— 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;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 August 2019 — Leinfelder Uhren München v EUIPO — Schafft (Leinfelder)

(Case T-577/19)

(2019/C 328/85)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Leinfelder Uhren München GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Lüft, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thomas Schafft (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Leinfelder — EU trade mark No 13 975 461

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 May 2019 in Joined Cases R 1930/2018-2 and R 1937/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as the contested EU trade mark was also revoked for goods in Class 14 (wristwatches) and Class 18 (watch straps);

— dismiss the cancellation applicant’s appeal in Case R 1930/2018-2;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— in the event that the other party participates in the proceedings as intervener, order him to bear his own costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 August 2019 — Luz Saúde v EUIPO — Clínica La Luz (HOSPITAL DA LUZ LEARNING HEALTH TRAINING, RESEARCH & INNOVATION CENTER)

(Case T-558/19)

(2019/C 319/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Luz Saúde, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: G. Moreira Rato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clínica La Luz, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark HOSPITAL DA LUZ LEARNING HEALTH TRAINING, RESEARCH & INNOVATION CENTER — Application for registration No 16 433 823

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2019 in Case R 2239/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 August 2019 – Lozano Arana and Others v EUIPO – Coltejer (LIBERTADOR)

(Case T-564/19)

(2019/C 337/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Antonio Lozano Arana (Cali, Colombia), Daniel Simon Benmaor (Marseille, France), Marion Esther Benmaor (Marseille), Valérie Brigitte Danielle Servant (Marrakech, Morocco) (represented by: M. Angelier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coltejer SA (Itagüí, Antioquia, Colombia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Applicants before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark LIBERTADOR – European Union trade mark No 9 067 414

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2019 in Case R 2482/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of essential procedural requirements (right of defense, right to access to a judge);
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that, by failing to adopt a decision, the European Commission infringed Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), in so far as it denies the applicant access to review of the decision and the exercise of his rights of defence before a judicial body or the Court of Justice.
Second plea in law (application for annulment): Infringement of the obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU

The applicant submits in that regard that the reasons for the decision rejecting the application for payment of default interest are insufficient since that decision fails to explain sufficiently clearly the reason for the rejection of the application. It remains unclear whether the Commission assumes that Article 90 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (1) also definitively regulates the entitlement to default interest under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU and how such an interpretation is compatible with the settled case-law relating to the Commission’s obligation to pay default interest under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 August 2019 – Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO – Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)

(Case T-595/19)

(2019/C 357/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, S. Baran, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

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 GRILLOUMI BURGER – Application for registration No 15 963 283

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2019 in Case R 1356/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 5 September 2019 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO (FAKE DUCK)

(Case T-607/19)

(2019/C 372/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark FAKE DUCK — Application for registration No. 17 946 879

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2019 in Case R 830/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Failure to take into account the inherent distinctive character of the mark FAKE DUCK;

— Failure to take into account the complexity of the mark FAKE DUCK and the picture of an egg;

— Misapplication of the principle of equal treatment;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 September 2019 — Katjes Fassin v EUIPO — Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium (WONDERLAND)

(Case T-616/19)

(2019/C 363/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz and M. Breuer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium BV (Breda, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark WONDERLAND — Application No 16 263 295

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2019 in Case R 2164/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 September 2019 — Alfa Acciai v Commission

(Case T-656/19)

(2019/C 399/107)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alfa Acciai SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: D. Fosselard, G. Carnazza, lawyers, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those set out in Case T-655/19, Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 September 2019 – eSky Group IP v EUIPO – Gröpel (e)

(Case T-646/19)

(2019/C 383/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: eSky Group IP sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Kurcman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gerhard Gröpel (Straubing, 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 figurative mark e in colours turquoise, white, dark blue, blue and light pink – Application for registration No 16 731 333

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2019 in Case R 223/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of Opposition Division of 29 November 2018 adopted in opposition proceedings No B 2 957 168;

— refer the case back to EUIPO;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.

Plea in law
Action brought on 25 September 2019 — Universität Bremen v Commission and REA

(Case T-660/19)

(2019/C 399/109)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Universität Bremen (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: Professor C. Schmid, Agent)

Defendants: European Commission and Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 16 July 2019 rejecting Proposal No 870693 (TenOpt), in the context of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, Call: H2020-SC6-GOVERNANCE-2019;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the decision at issue infringes its right, derived from the rule of law, to have its request for funding reviewed without any errors of assessment. In particular, the applicant submits that the evaluation was vitiated by the following:

— distortion of the facts, that is to say that essential particulars of the request for funding were incorrectly reproduced in the evaluation;

— failure to comply with generally applicable assessment criteria;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 September 2019 — Welter’s v EUIPO (Shape of a handgrip with bristles)

(Case T-624/19)

(2019/C 399/95)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Welter’s Co. Ltd (Touliu, Taiwan) (represented by: T. Meinke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Representation of tridimensional European Union mark (Shape of a handgrip with bristles) in white — Application for registration No 17 902 351

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2019 in Case R 2428/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant disputes the legality of the decision at issue and claims that the Court should order EUIPO to enter the mark applied for in the register of EU trade marks also in respect of the following further goods in Class 21: brushes; material for brush-making; toothpicks; combs; toothbrushes; interdental brushes for cleaning the teeth.

Pleas in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures violate the applicant’s fundamental rights including the right to health, the right to family life, the right to property, and the right to effective defense as safeguarded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Contested Measures are neither necessary nor appropriate for any legitimate aim and constitute an indefinite and disproportionate interference with the Applicant’s fundamental rights.
—

find that the European Commission has interfered with his right to honour, his right to personal and family life, his right to protect his personal image and his right to dignity by using his image without his permission as one of the photographs proposed by the Commission to be used as health warnings to be included on the packaging of tobacco products in accordance with Commission Delegated Directive 2014/109/EU;
8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that, in determining the amount of the aid to be recovered, losses, reliefs or exemptions which were available to the applicant (whether by way of claim, election, or automatically) at the time when it claimed the GFE, or which would have been available at that time had it not claimed the GFE, should be taken into account even if access to those losses, reliefs or exemptions is now time barred under UK law. — The applicant argues that that is the correct interpretation of recital 203 of the contested decision but, insofar as that is not the case, that decision is incorrect because failing to take such losses, reliefs or exemptions into account would lead to over-calculation of the amount of the aid which would introduce a distortion into the internal market.