ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) (Article 16, Article 17(1), Article 21(1), Article 45(1) and Article 48(1)) through limitation of the freedom to take up and pursue a business connected with shooting; limitation of the right to property as well as the use and disposal of firearms, ammunition containing lead, and facilities constituting shooting ranges; discrimination against target shooters and hunters; limitation of the possibility of movement with ammunition containing lead; and introduction of a presumption that persons who move in ‘wetlands’ with ammunition containing lead are guilty of being persons who shoot in ‘wetlands’ using ammunition containing lead and, therefore, persons acting in breach of the prohibition.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 April 2021 — Ignacio Carrasco v EUIPO — Santos Carrasco Manzano (La Hoja del Carrasco)

(Case T-209/21)

(2021/C 217/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ignacio Carrasco SL (Guijuelo, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Donoso Romero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Santos Carrasco Manzano SA (Guijuelo, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark La Hoja del Carrasco — EU trade mark application No 15 670 813

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2021 in Case R 175/2020-1

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— Consequently, dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety;

— Order EUIPO and Santos Carrasco Manzano SA to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 May 2021 — Meta Cluster v EUIPO (Clustermedizin)

(Case T-233/21)

(2021/C 242/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Meta Cluster GmbH (Pyrbaum, Germany) (represented by: H. Baumann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Clustermedizin — Application for registration No 18 203 454

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2021 in Case R 2127/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 27 April 2021 — PepsiCo v EUIPO (Smartfood)

(Case T-224/21)

(2021/C 228/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PepsiCo, Inc. (Raleigh, North Carolina, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Smartfood in colour — Application for registration No 18 170 180

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2021 in Case R 1947/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— 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 18 May 2021 — Sunshine Smile v EUIPO (PlusDental+)

(Case T-265/21)

(2021/C 263/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sunshine Smile GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: D. Kirschner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark PlusDental+ in blue and red colours –Registration No 18 126 826

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 in Case R 1834/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the publication of the application for registration of the EU mark No 18 126 826;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 5 May 2021 — Varabei v Council

(Case T-245/21)

(2021/C 252/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mikalai Mikalevich Varabei (Novopolotsk, Belarus) (represented by: G. Kremslehner, H. Kühnert, lawyers, and M. Lester QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul with immediate effect Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/353 of 25 February 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/339 of 25 February 2021 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (2).

— order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law alleging manifest errors of assessment. The applicant invokes that the Council has not explained how the applicant’s business interests demonstrate either that the applicant benefits from or that that he supports the Lukashenka regime. To the contrary, the applicant's interests in the petroleum, coal transit and banking sectors are not of a type or magnitude that would indicate that the applicant supports or benefits from the regime in any way.

In addition, the applicant claims that his listing cannot be sustained on the basis that he is the co-owner of Bremino Group. The latter has not received any selective tax benefits nor other forms of support from the Belarusian administration.

(1) OJ L 68, 26.2.2021, p. 189.

(2) OJ L 68, 26.2.2021, p. 29.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to have their affairs handled impartially and fairly laid down in Article 41(1) of the Charter, which amounts also to a violation of Article 39(2) of the Charter, in connection with a failure to state reasons as regards several procedural decisions, thereby breaching the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter, and a breach of Article 15 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 May 2021 — Sturz v EUIPO — Clatronic International (STEAKER)

(Case T-261/21)

(2021/C 289/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Manfred Sturz (Schorndorf, Germany) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clatronic International GmbH (Kempen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘STEAKER’ — European Union trade mark No 16 707 465

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 March 2021 in Case R 214/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— order any intervener to bear its own costs;

— in the further alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal.

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;

— Denial of right to be heard within the meaning of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Failure to carry out a full examination and distortion of facts and evidence pursuant to Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (SALATINA)

(Case T-287/21)

(2021/C 278/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark SALATINA — European Union trade mark No 15 940 141

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2021 in Case R 889/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present application;

— reform the contested decision in such manner to uphold the applicant’s appeal and reform the decision issued in cancellation procedure No 26 905 C of 17 March 2020 in such manner, to uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested trade mark SALATINA and to declare the contested trade mark invalid in its entirety;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

— remit the case back to the EUIPO for further deliberation;

— order EUIPO to pay all costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on grounds of bad faith;
Action brought on 9 June 2021 — Lietuvos geležinkeliai v Commission

(Case T-321/21)

(2021/C 297/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Zaščiurinskaitė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible;

— order the European Commission to pay AB Lietuvos geležinkeliai compensation of EUR 850 565,76, corresponding default interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations, plus 3.5 percentage points, on the amount of EUR 7 804 350 for the period from 5 January 2018 until 29 January 2021;

— order the European Commission to pay AB Lietuvos geležinkeliai default interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations, plus 3.5 percentage points, on the amount of EUR 850 565,76 for the period from 30 January 2021 until the date of actual payment of the principal amount;

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul the European Commission decisions of 26 April 2021 and 16 May 2021;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging violation of first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU: the European Commission had erred in fulfilling its absolute and unconditional obligation to pay default interest after the reduction of a fine imposed by the Commission, which was provisionally paid by the applicant.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that breach of the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU rendered the European Union non-contractually liable pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. The applicant alleges that a person must be able to seek compensation not only for actual loss but also for loss of profit and interest.

4. Forth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights since judicial protection under Article 263 TFEU is not effective if the undertaking concerned is unable to obtain interest on an unduly paid fine after a Court reduces a fine for infringement of European Union competition rules.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 266, 340 TFEU, Articles 41(3), 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, by the decision of 26 April 2021 (1) and 16 May 2021 (2) by which the Commission refused to pay default interest.

(1) Email from the Commission to the applicant of 26 April 2021, subject: RE: Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail

(2) Email from the Commission to the applicant of 16 May 2021, subject: RE: Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail, confirming position expressed in the email of 26 April 2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 June 2021 — Worldwide Machinery v EUIPO — Scaip (SUPERIOR MANUFACTURING)

(Case T-316/21)

(2021/C 289/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Worldwide Machinery Ltd (Channelview, Texas, United States) (represented by: B. Woltering, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scaip SpA (Parma, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark SUPERIOR MANUFACTURING — European Union trade mark No 11 385 333

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 in Case R 873/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety and the decision of the Cancellation Division of 12 March 2020 in Cancellation [Proceedings] No 28 762 C in so far that the request for revocation of the European Union trade mark (No 11 385 333) was rejected;

— revoke the challenged European Union trade mark in relation to the following goods: Class 12: Self-propelled machines for creating oil pipelines, gas and water conduits; land vehicles, namely self-propelled equipment for placing pipes; kits for converting crawler land vehicles to land vehicles comprising self-propelled equipment for placing pipes; sifting buckets; suction cups for lifter; hydraulic chucks; self-propelled pipe bending machines;

— order for reimbursement of its costs in the proceedings before the General Court.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 June 2021 — Mendus v EUIPO (CENSOR.NET)

(Case T-336/21)

(2021/C 320/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iaroslav Mendus (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: P. Kurcman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark CENSOR.NET — Application for registration No 17 975 929

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 April 2021 in Case R 1225/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in respect of services for which registration has been refused;

— annul the decision of Operations Division dated 17 April 2020 in application procedure No 17 975 929 in respect of services for which registration has been refused;

— refer the case back to EUIPO so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register European Union trade mark No 17 975 929 in respect of all the services covered;

— charge EUIPO with the costs of the proceedings before the Operations Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 June 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-340/21)

(2021/C 329/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 23 December 2020 on State aid SA.59462 (2020/N) — Greece — COVID-19: Damage compensation for Aegean Airlines (1); and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU, the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment) and Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (2).

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.

(1) OJ 2021 C 122, p. 15 and 16.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 June 2021 — Sushi&Food Factor v EUIPO (READY 4YOU)

(Case T-367/21)

(2021/C 329/52)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Sushi&Food Factor sp. z o.o. (Robakowo, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark READY 4YOU — Application No 18 210 977

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2021 in Case R 2273/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety and give final judgment by approving for registration EU trade mark application No 18 210 977;

— in the alternative, annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2021 in Case R 2273/2020-5 and remit the case to EUIPO for further consideration;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) thereof;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
3.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, due diligence, and the principle of impartiality enshrined by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicant claims that the contested decision sets out, in order to justify initiating recovery proceedings, that there was no response to the debit note, the reminder or the letter of formal notice. In doing so, the defendant failed to state, first, that the applicant disputed the latter documents and, second, that the Belgian court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the action brought before it on the basis of the two contracts. The applicant adds that the defendant also disregarded its obligation to state reasons, since it failed to explain the reasons that led it to decide as it did in the present case. Lastly, the applicant takes the view that the Commission failed to examine, carefully and impartially, all of the relevant elements of the case in point.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty, since the calculation of the amount of the ex ante contributions fixed by the SRM Regulation, the Delegated Regulation and the Implementing Regulation, first, cannot be predicted with clarity sufficiently early and, second, does not depend so much on the inherent situation and risk profile of the institution but rather on its relative situation compared to the other contributing institutions. Lastly, the applicant considers that the Commission should not have had responsibility for determining risk indicators in the context of the Delegated Regulation, since those criteria have an extremely fundamental and decisive function in determining the amounts of the contributions (Article 290 TFEU).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 July 2021 — Sushi&Food Factor v EUIPO (READY 4YOU)

(Case T-432/21)

(2021/C 357/47)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Sushi&Food Factor sp. z o.o. (Robakowo, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark READY 4YOU — Application No 18 209 237

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2021 in Case R 2321/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and give final judgment by approving for registration EU trade mark application No 18 209 237;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision and remit the case to EUIPO for further consideration;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) thereof;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority for the selection of Civilian Operations Commander and Director of CPCC;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 July 2021 — VITRONIC v EUIPO (Enforcement Trailer)

(Case T-433/21)

(2021/C 357/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: VITRONIC Dr.-Ing. Stein Bildverarbeitungssysteme GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: D. Tsoumanis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Enforcement Trailer — Application for registration No 18 281 599

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2021 in Case R 236/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare that the grounds for refusal to register set out in Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 preclude registration only in those Member States in which English is the official language, namely Ireland and Malta;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the General Court and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;