ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/47

Action brought on 28 June 2016 — CSL Behring v EUIPO — Vivatrex (Vivatrex)

(Case T-346/16)

(2016/C 305/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CSL Behring AG (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vivatrex GmbH (Aachen, 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 figurative mark containing the word element ‘VIVATREX’ — Application for registration No 11 677 788

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2016 in joined Cases R 1263/2015-4 and R 1221/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety and annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 30 April 2015 given in opposition proceeding No B 2 241 613 insofar as it rejected the opposition;

— uphold opposition No B 2 241 613 in its entirety;

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

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging unlawful acts committed by the Commission and constituting serious breaches of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals, thus triggering the Commission’s non-contractual responsibility. In the first place, the applicant considers that the Commission failed properly to inform him of the allegations and evidence put forward against him and did not give him the opportunity effectively to formulate his observations with respect to them before the exclusion decision was taken, contrary to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the general principles of good administration, respect for the rights of the defence and Article 16 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. In the second place, the Commission failed carefully and impartially to examine all the evidence relevant to the present case before deciding to exclude the applicant from the Team Europe network, contrary to the principle of diligence laid down in Article 41 of the Charter and to Articles 8, 9 and 11 of the Code. In doing so, the Commission also infringed the principle of the presumption of the applicant’s innocence laid down in Article 48 of the Charter. In the third place, the applicant maintains that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, making vague and, moreover, incorrect allegations, contrary to Article 41(2) of the Charter and Article 18 of the Code. Lastly, the decision taken by the Commission is, having regard to the circumstances of the case, manifestly unfounded and disproportionate.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not satisfy the requirements laid down for the standard of the statement of reasons and the definition of the subject-matter and purpose of the inspection — In the contested decision the Commission defined the subject-matter and purpose of the inspection inadmissibly broadly. It also gave insufficient reasons for the contested decision. In the statement of reasons for the contested decision the Commission did not describe specifically the facts and hypotheses it intended to ascertain by means of the inspection. Nor did it specify any circumstantial evidence to support its suspicions. The definition of the subject-matter and purpose of the inspection in the contested decision and its statement of reasons did not enable the applicant to determine its corresponding obligations sufficiently precisely. The contested decision thus also interferes with the applicant’s rights of defence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/41

Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Windfinder R&L v EUIPO (Windfinder)

(Case T-395/16)

(2016/C 343/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Windfinder R&L GmbH & Co. KG (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: B. Schneider, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Windfinder’ — Application No 13 350 467

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2016 in Case R 1206/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— amend the contested decision to the extent that EU trade mark application No 13 350 467 is registered as applied for;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (медведь)

(Case T-432/16)

(2016/C 364/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word element ‘медведь’ — Application No 14 397 921

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 May 2016 in Case R 240/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and grant the applicant’s application for registration of the trade mark at issue.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/27

Action brought on 4 August 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO — Yokohama Rubber (Representation of a tyre tread)

(Case T-447/16)

(2016/C 350/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: figurative mark (representation of a tyre tread — EU trade mark No 2 319 176)

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 2583/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as it declared the trademark invalid and ordered the applicant to bear the costs of proceedings before the Office.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/23

Action brought on 10 August 2016 — Ellinikos Syndemos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 v EUIPO — 520 Barcode Ellas (520Barcode Hellas)

(Case T-453/16)

(2016/C 371/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ellinikos Syndemos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 (Argiroupoli Attikis, Greece) (represented by: A. Mouzaki, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 520 Barcode Ellas — AE Diacheirisis Diethnon Protypon kai Parochis Symvouleutikon Ypiresion (Kifisia Attikis, Greece)

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 containing the word elements ‘5 201000 603856 520Barcode Hellas’ — Application for registration No 10 881 861

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2016 in Case R 238/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the legal fees of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 July 2016 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO — eBay (dA/tA/bA/y)

(Case T-393/16)

(2016/C 364/12)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Omnicom International Holdings, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: eBay, Inc. (San Jose, California, United states)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘(dA/tA/bA/y)’ — EU trade mark application No 12 354 015

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 May 2016 in Case R 872/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 383/23

Action brought on 31 August 2016 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — Paalupaikka (MAIN AUTO WHEELS)

(Case T-623/16)

(2016/C 383/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus, and J. Engberding, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paalupaikka Oy (Iisalmi, Finland)

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 ‘MAIN AUTO WHEELS’ — Application No 12 863 643

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2016 in Case R 2189/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/45

Action brought on 30 August 2016 — Sicignano v EUIPO — Inprodi (GiCapri ‘a giacchett’e capri’)

(Case T-619/16)

(2016/C 392/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pasquale Sicignano (Santa Maria la Cairtà, Italy) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and G. Petrocchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Inghirami Produzione Distribuzione SpA (Inprodi) (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘GiCapri “a giacchett'e capri”’ — Application for registration No 12 512 778

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2016 in Case R 806/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO delivered on 2 June 2016 in Case R 806/2015-5 dismissing application No 12512778 for registration of the composite mark GiCapri ‘a Giacchett’e capri’ for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 35, which should therefore be granted;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

in the alternative, if the Court is not entirely persuaded of the relevance and truthfulness of the applicant’s pleas of law and fact, in the interests of the sound administration of justice taking into account the undeniable relationship between the alleged facts upon which the contested decision is based, and those that are the subject of the criminal investigation initiated by the President of the European Parliament: — stay the proceedings pending a final decision, with the authority of ‘res judicata’, delivered by the French ordinary court before which the proceedings initiated by the President of the European Parliament have been brought; — order, consequently, the suspension of the operation of the contested decision until the end of the proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/59

Action brought on 16 September 2016 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (Second Display)

(Case T-659/16)

(2016/C 402/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Second Display’ — Application for registration No 14 362 248

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 June 2016 in Case R 106/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office’s First Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
—

set aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (‘CST’) of 24 June 2016 in Case 142/11 RENV Erik Simpson v Council, insofar as it rejects the annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 9 December 2010 and declares that the applicant has to bear its own costs and the costs of the Council;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/27

Action brought on 21 September 2016 – C=Holdings v EUIPO – Trademarkers (C=commodore)

(Case T-672/16)

(2016/C 410/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: C=Holdings BV (Oldenzaal, The Netherlands) (represented by: P. Maeyaert, K. Neefs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Trademarkers NV (Antwerp, Belgium)

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 figurative mark containing the word element ‘C=commodore’ – International registration designating the European Union No 907 082

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2016 in Case R 2585/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to the extent that is dismissed the appeal of the Applicant and remit the case to the Board of Appeal;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law
—

in consequence thereof, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance and, accordingly, — annul Decision CMS 13-005 of the Tripartite appointing authority in so far as it provides for deferment of the appellant’s advancement to a higher salary step for 18 months and for payment of compensation in respect of damage assessed by the decision at EUR 108 596,35; — so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the appellant’s complaint; — in the alternative, reduce the financial penalty contained in Decision CMS 13-005; — order the respondent to pay compensation in respect of the non-material harm and reputational damage suffered by the appellant, assessed at EUR 20 000; — order the respondent to pay the costs in their entirety;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/55

Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Sergio Siragusa against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2016 in Case F-124/15, Siragusa v Council

(Case T-678/16 P)

(2016/C 419/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Sergio Siragusa (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2016, served on 14 July 2016, Siragusa v Council of the European Union (F-124/15);

— Refer to the substance of the action and set aside the order under appeal;

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single ground of appeal, alleging an error of law.

He is of the opinion that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the classification in law of the Council’s decision validating his early retirement of 11 July 2013. In consequence, he submits that the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 November 2014 refusing his early retirement must be regarded as an adverse measure withdrawing the earlier decision accepting his early retirement and not as a mere decision confirming an implied rejection decision.

The appellant submits, finally, that since the decision of 12 November 2014 was contested within the period prescribed for that purpose, the action brought at first instance is admissible and its merits must be examined.
Appeal brought on 3 October 2016 by WQ (*1) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-1/16, WQ (*1) v Parliament

(Case T-705/16 P)

(2016/C 454/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: WQ (*1) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-1/16, WQ (*1) v Parliament;

— annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 27 March 2015 not to include the appellant’s name on the list of officials selected to participate in the training programme for the 2014 certification exercise;

— order the Parliament to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

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

1. First ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) erred in law when it examined the plea in law submitted by the applicant at first instance alleging infringement of the general principle of equal treatment, by concluding that the applicant was in a different factual situation to that of a candidate with a qualification at the same level who completed a course of at least one year.

2. Second ground of appeal, alleging that the CST erred in law when it held that the decision at issue, that is to say, the decision not to include the appellant’s name on list of officials selected to participate in the training programme for the 2014 certification exercise, did not infringe Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the division of competences between the Union and its Member States in the field of education.

3. Third ground of appeal, alleging that the CST erred in law when it dismissed the plea of illegality raised by the applicant at first instance, on the ground that the requirement for having completed a course of at least one year was justified and proportionate having regard to the nature of the certification process. In that context, the appellant submits that the CST also distorted his arguments when it concluded that he had not contested the argument that taking into consideration the qualification at issue would have had the effect of highlighting his professional experience acquired at the institutions twice.

(*1) Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.
1.

First plea in law, alleging errors of law in rejecting the applicant’s first plea as unfounded. The appellant argues that the Civil Service Tribunal committed four main errors with regards to his first plea in law: — first, the Tribunal established, in contravention to applicable case law, that it does not need to review the legality of the Appointing Authority’s actions if the Appointing Authority declares that it has satisfied its legal duties and obligations; — second, the Tribunal was erroneous in dismissing the Joint Monitoring Committee Report as evidence and failing to effectively consider the demonstrated incomparability found in the sources of information used by the Appointing Authority; — third, the Tribunal erroneously ignored — without justification — the existence of the argument and evidence put forward by the appellant regarding the mathematical evaluation of the Appointing Authority’s literary assessment methodology as well as the entire second branch of his first plea in law; — fourth, the Tribunal was erroneous in its presumption that absence of an effective evaluation of comparative merits cannot give rise to annulment of a decision on promotion.
—

order the European Union and/or the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) to compensate for the amounts described in the application corresponding to the damage that the applicants suffered from their illegal participation in the restructuring of the Greek government debt, due to the activation of the retrofit Collective Action Clauses;
1.

First plea, relating to the second period during which the applicant acted as a member of the auxiliary staff, according to which the contested decision is based on a non-existent legal basis, since there is no condition relating to a change of institution in Commission Conclusion No 229/04 of 7 April 2004, Article 4(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, or in the case-law. Consequently, that part of the contested measure is unlawful and should be annulled.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is ultra vires. According to the applicant, the European Central Bank (ECB) is competent only to verify compliance with the conditions governing whether an establishment may be granted a derogation from the leverage ratio calculation rules in order to ensure the practical application of those conditions, without bolstering them or assessing their relevance, and is competent only to apply those conditions as they have been definitively and precisely laid down by the Commission, on the basis of its exclusive powers, by means of a delegated regulation designed to take into account the specific nature of the banking and financial industry in the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/46

Action brought on 4 November 2016 — Basil v EUIPO — Artex (Bicycle baskets)

(Case T-760/16)

(2017/C 006/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Basil BV (Silvolde, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Weber and J. von der Thüsen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Artex SpA (Zeno di Cassola, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 142 245-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 July 2016 in Case R 535/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and, if applicable, the other parties involved to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 52(3) of Regulation No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002, infringement of principles relating to the burden of proof and infringement of rules of logic in the evaluation of evidence;