ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/42

Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Caffè Nero Group v OHIM (CAFFÈ NERO)

(Case T-37/16)

(2016/C 106/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Caffè Nero Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Cassidy, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CAFFÈ NERO’ — Application for registration No 13 436 175

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2015 in Case R 954/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— allow Community trade mark application No. 13436175 to proceed to registration;

— waive the objections to the CTM Application under Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) and Article 7(2);

— allows the CTM Application to proceed to acceptance and advertisement for all covered goods and services;

— order OHIM to pay the Applicant’s costs in this matter.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) Regulation No 207/2009;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, in that the various technical audit reports invariably concluded that the resources were used by the applicant in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and sound financial management. It follows from this that the Commission could not claim to have validly found that the applicant had committed irregularities in connection with other grants such as to justify either the termination or suspension of all payments in the contested grant contracts. Moreover, participation in the grant agreements constitutes the only source of funding for the applicant and the absence of new European projects would inevitably lead to bankruptcy.
2.

Second plea in law: Infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, its right to effective legal protection and the duty to state reasons In that regard, the applicant complains that due consultation did not take place and that it was not granted access to the file. The reasoning contained in the contested acts is not comprehensible to the applicant. As a result the applicant’s rights of defence and its right to effective legal protection have been infringed. There has also been a breach of the principle of the right to be heard. The applicant also submits that the Council did not correctly assess the circumstances relating to the applicant. The applicant takes the view that it was deprived of a fair trial based on the rule of law, having been unable, in the absence of adequate knowledge, to comment specifically on the relevant allegations and alleged evidence of the Council, or to put forward any contrary evidence in the proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/41

Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-104/13 De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-70/16 P)

(2016/C 111/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul point 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 13 to 17, 57 to 60 and 62 to 68 of the judgment itself;

— Consequently, declare that bullying was committed by the EIB against Dr De Nicola, and order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs. Subject to completion of the requested medical examination;

— Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-104/13).

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

1. First ground of appeal, relating to the contractual nature of the relationship between the appellant and the EIB. — In that regard, the appellant argues that he sought compensation for damage in respect of the contractual liability of the EIB, and not the non-contractual liability of the European Union.

2. Second ground of appeal, relating to the request for a declaration of bullying. — In that regard, the appellant argues, in particular, that the Civil Service Tribunal could not evade its duty to investigate an accusation of bullying, and, therefore, that it entirely unlawfully declared that the head of claim seeking a declaration that that bullying had taken place was inadmissible. The verification and legal characterisation of the facts is, inter alia, an essential ‘precondition’ in order subsequently to determine the compensation for the alleged damage.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/39

Action brought on 17 February 2016 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Position of two parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T-85/16)

(2016/C 136/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU position mark consisting of two parallel lines positioned on the outside surface of the upper part of a shoe — Application for registration No 10 477 701

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 in Case R 3106/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

principally:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

in the alternative:

— remit the case to the Defendant ordering a renewed examination independent of the judgment of the General Court in case No. T-145/14;

in the second alternative:

— remit the case to the Defendant ordering a stay of the proceedings on the outcome of the Applicant’s appeal of the General Court’s decision in case No. T-145/14 to the Court of Justice of the European Union, case No. C-396/15 P, and on delivery of a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union in said case to conduct its own evaluation of the similarities and differences between the marks to be compared.

Pleas in law

— the Defendant erred in not making its own assessment of the similarities and differences between the Applicant’s disputed mark and the earlier mark of the Opponent registered under EU trade mark No 3 517 646;
Second plea in law: infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity and of legal certainty.

The Commission infringed the principles of non-retroactivity and of legal certainty in so far as it applied the framework for State aid (1) in the form of public service compensation, with effect from 31 January 2012, to a subsidy scheme which had no longer been applied since 2011 and had been replaced by a new subsidy scheme, which was approved by the Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/16

Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Laboratoire de la mer v EUIPO — Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma (RESPIMER)

(Case T-109/16)

(2016/C 165/18)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire de la mer (Saint-Malo, France) (represented by: S. Szilvasi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Ingelheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘RESPIMER’ — Application for registration No 11 228 004

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 in Case R 3109/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— allow the EU trade mark application ‘RESPIMER’ No 11 228 004 to mature to registration for all designated goods in classes 3, 5 and 10;

— order Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG to reimburse all costs to the applicant before the Opposition division of the EUIPO, the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO and the General Court of the European Union.

Pleas in law

— By refusing to take into consideration the decision of April 4, 2013 of the French national institute of industrial property as regards the same marks, the fifth board of appeal has failed to provide legal basis to its decision of January 21, 2016;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/35

Action brought on 8 March 2016 — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen v Commission

(Case T-101/16)

(2016/C 145/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH (Saalburg-Ebersdorf, Germany) (represented by: D. Reich, C. Hipp and T. Ilgner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— find that the defendant infringed Article 108 TFEU in conjunction with Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by failing, following receipt of the applicant’s letter of 13 November 2015, to take the decision provided for in those provisions to close the preliminary examination procedures in cases SA.37113 and SA.375009 pursuant to Article 4 of that regulation;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, even if the action should serve no purpose by reason of the adoption of a measure by the European Commission in the course of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law by which it claims that the Commission failed to take, within a reasonable period, a decision closing the preliminary examination procedure pursuant to Article 4(2) to (4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (1) despite being called upon to act pursuant to the second paragraph of 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).
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the claim that the tax on legal persons, to which ports are subject, amounts to an advantage since any auxiliary economic activities in which they may engage are not charged to tax, has not been established. Moreover, the Commission has not identified which activities should, in its view, be charged to tax or those activities which form services of general interest.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/19

Action brought on 17 March 2016 — Naviera Armas v Commission

(Case T-108/16)

(2016/C 175/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Naviera Armas, SA (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra and Á. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 December 2015 on State aid SA.36628 (2015/NN-2) (OJ 2016 C 25, p. 2) finding that no State aid was granted to the shipping company Fred Olsen S.A. in the context of measures adopted by the Kingdom of Spain at Puerto de las Nieves;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision, the Commission found that the alleged exclusive right held by Fred Olsen to operate out of the port of Puerto de las Nieves (the Canary Islands, Spain), Fred Olsen’s total or partial exemption from payment of the corresponding port dues, and the conditions of use of that port which, according to the applicant, also provide an unfair advantage to that shipping company in that they exclude conventional vessels, do not constitute State aid.

In support of its action, the applicant raises a single plea claiming that it provided a sufficient statement of reasons for the Commission to have reasonable doubt concerning the existence of State aid in favour of Fred Olsen, thus giving grounds for initiation of a formal investigation procedure.

In support of that plea, the applicant contends that:

— the excessively long duration of the preliminary examination carried out by the Commission between the date Naviera Armas lodged its complaint, 26 April 2013, and the date of the contested decision is, in itself, evidence of the complexity of the case and demonstrates that initiation of a formal investigation procedure was necessary.

— the contested decision is vitiated by certain manifest errors in the assessment of the facts, such as stating that no undertaking requested permission to operate out of Puerto de las Nieves using high speed ferries before 2013, that Fred Olsen was the only undertaking interested in using the port in the 1990s, and that only high speed ferries can operate out of that port.

— Fred Olsen has had exclusive use of Puerto de las Nieves since 1991 thus giving it a competitive advantage at the discretion of the Spanish authorities.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/29

Action brought on 14 April 2016 — GRID applications v EUIPO (APlan)

(Case T-154/16)

(2016/C 200/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GRID applications GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Meyenburg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘APlan’ — Application No 13 374 079

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 in Case R 1819/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, with the result that EUIPO will have to allow Community trade mark application 13374079 to proceed to registration in accordance with the application or, in the alternative, as restricted for the classes of goods and services 9, 35 and 42, or, in any event, solely for Classes 9 and 42;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings before OHIM/EUIPO and in the present proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/39

Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO — Intesia Group Holding (INTESA)

(Case T-143/16)

(2016/C 191/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Torino, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intesia Group Holding GmbH (Böblingen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘INTESA’ — EU trade mark No 3 105 277

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 in Case R 632/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the other parties to pay the costs of the present proceeding, as well as those of the EUIPO application for revocation and appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 April 2016 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Ernst and Häcker (CERTIFIED FINANCIAL MODELER CFM)

(Case T-156/16)

(2016/C 211/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States) (represented by: S. Rohlfing and G. Engels, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dietmar Ernst (Nürtingen, Germany), Joachim Häcker (Nürtingen)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘CERTIFIED FINANCIAL MODELER CFM’ — Application for registration No 9 569 658

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 in Case R 9/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the opposition filed by the plaintiff against the trademark application No 9 569 658 by the participants;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs or;

— in case the participants will join the proceedings as interveners, to order the participants to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff both in the appeal proceedings before the EUIPO and in the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

(Case T-174/16)

(2016/C 211/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wessel-Werk GmbH (Reichshof, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wolf PVG GmbH & Co. KG (Vlotho, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: The applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 725932-0004 (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 in Case R 1652/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/30

Action brought on 3 May 2016 – Apax Partners UK v EUIPO – Apax Partners Midmarket (APAX PARTNERS)

(Case T-209/16)

(2016/C 232/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Apax Partners UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Rose and J. Warner, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apax Partners Midmarket (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘APAX PARTNERS’ – EU trade mark No 1 805 282

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 February 2016 in Case R 1611/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety and order the registration to be reinstated in its entirety by the EUIPO;

— order the EUIPO and any party involved in these proceedings before the Board to pay the costs of these proceedings and those of the Appeal before the Board and the Cancellation n. 779 C before the Cancellation Division.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 May 2016 — Interbank Deposit Protection Fund v Commission

(Case T-198/16)

(2016/C 222/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Interbank Deposit Protection Fund (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, G. Scassellati Sforzolini and G. Faella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul European Commission Decision C(2015) 9526 final of 23 December 2015 on the State aid SA.39451 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN);

— in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it concerns the assessment and classification of the aid element inherent in measure 3;

— order the Commission to pay the costs;

— order any other measure, including any measure of inquiry, which it deems appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present action is the same one contested in Case T-98/16, Italy v Commission, and Case T-196/16, Banca Tercas v Commission.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in those two cases.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/41

Action brought on 9 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FREE STYLE)

(Case T-213/16)

(2016/C 243/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FREE STYLE’— EU trade mark No 4 761 731

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2016 in Case R 387/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

The pleas in law and principal arguments are those put forward in Case T-212/16, El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FRee STyLe).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/46

Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Viridis Pharmaceutical v EUIPO — Hecht-Pharma (Boswelan)

(Case T-276/16)

(2016/C 251/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Viridis Pharmaceutical (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hecht-Pharma GmbH (Hollnseth, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Boswelan’ — European Union trade mark No 3 381 563

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 February 2016 in Case R 2837/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it rejects the applicant’s appeal against the declaration of the revocation of European Union trade mark No 003381563 in relation to ‘medicinal products for the treatment of multiple sclerosis’;

— order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the mark;

— Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Proper reasons for non-use of the mark;