ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 December 2021 — European Food v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (FITNESS)

(Case T-799/21)

(2022/C 84/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Food SA (Drăgăneşti, Romania) (represented by: I. Speciac, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

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 FITNESS — European Union trade mark No 2 470 326

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 October 2021 in Case R 894/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— as a secondary claim, alter the contested decision and grant the appeal filed against the decision rendered by the Cancellation Division in Cancellation Proceedings No 5 802 C;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council, and of rules 37 and 50(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council;
—

if the Court dismisses the present action — in the light of the multiple irregularities committed by the PMO over time, the fact that ‘a tax allowance is not easily detectable on a payslip’, the assurances given by the PMO to the applicant, the applicant’s good faith which the administration accepts and the fact that the applicant (having no reason to doubt the amount of his salary) made financial commitments proportionate to such a salary level during those years (such as taking out a mortgage for the purchase of a house for his family) — the applicant submits that, in the interest of fairness, the Court should order the Commission to bear at least its own costs and to pay those of the applicant pursuant to Article 135 of the Rules of Procedure.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Wajos v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)

(Case T-10/22)

(2022/C 84/72)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wajos GmbH (Dohr, Germany) (represented by: N. Böhmer und J. Schneiders, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark (Shape of a bottle) — Application for registration No 14 886 097

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2021 in Case R 2958/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the binding authority of a judgment which has become final;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 January 2022 — uwe JetStream GmbH/EUIPO (JET STREAM)

(Case T-14/22)

(2022/C 119/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: uwe JetStream GmbH (Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneider, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘JET STREAM’ — Application for registration No 20 809 111

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2021 in Case R 1092/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision, as well as the first instance EUIPO decision of 15 December 2020 and of 29 April 2021;

— allow the extension of the protection of international registration No 0809111 for the purposes of its registration in the European Union;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Articles 49, 50 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1) and, second, infringement of the general legal principle of the force of res judicata, in that the Commission exceeded the limits of the powers conferred on it by that regulation.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 February 2022 — Guma Holdings v EUIPO — X-Trade Brokers Dom Maklerski (XTRADE)

(Case T-67/22)

(2022/C 138/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Guma Holdings LTD (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: M. Oleksyn and M. Stępkowski, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: X-Trade Brokers Dom Maklerski S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark XTRADE in the colours dark grey, light grey, blue, shades of blue — European Union trade mark No 13 061 387

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2021 in Case R 981/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision and reject the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1);

— Infringement of Articles 8(4) and 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Articles 16(1)(b) and 7(2)(d) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.

(1) JO 2012 C 326, p. 391.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 January 2022 — Dado Ceramica and Others v EUIPO — Italcer (Piastrelle)

(Case T-40/22)

(2022/C 128/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Dado Ceramica Srl (San Giovanni in Persiceto, Italy), Antica Ceramica Rubiera Srl (Rubiera, Italy) and Star-Gres sp. z o.o. (Końskie, Poland) (represented by: A. Merlini and F. Carpi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Italcer SpA (Rubiera, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design (Piastrelle) — Community design No 6 581 245-0013

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 November 2021 in Case R 1965/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity;

— in the alternative, after the annulment of the contested decision, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and issue appropriate directions regarding the oral phases of the procedure and the admission of new and highly relevant documents;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings and reimburse the costs incurred by the applicants.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
—

The applicants claim in this regard that, in the first place, when the European Commission determined the value of the sales to take as a reference for calculating the basic amount of the penalty imposed on them, it erred in taking into account the value of the sales generated throughout the EEA. In the second place, the applicants claim that the application by the European Commission of a proportion of 18 % of the value of the sales is unjustified in the present case. In addition, the European Commission complains that Conserve Italia participated in the infringement during a period corresponding to the entire duration of the infringement, failing to take into account that its participation in each agreement was far more limited and in no way continuous, since the execution of the agreements was subject to various interruptions.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 February 2022 — Bambu Sales v EUIPO (BAMBU)

(Case T-82/22)

(2022/C 148/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bambu Sales, Inc. (Secaucus, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: T. Stein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BAMBU — Application for registration No 18 105 815

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2021 in Case R 1702/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

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

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 22 February 2022 — Transgourmet Ibérica v EUIPO — Aldi (Gourmet)

(Case T-102/22)

(2022/C 165/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Transgourmet Ibérica, SAU (Gerona, Spain) (represented by: C. Duch Fonoll and I. Osinaga Lozano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany)

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 Gourmet — European Union trade mark No 8 143 653

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2021 in Case R 862/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— remit the case back to the Board of Appeal to give final judgment and

— order the EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the appellant in the present proceedings and in the appeal and first instance proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 3 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the case-law related;

— Infringement of Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 10(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and case-law related;
Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Rivière v Parliament and ID

(Case T-54/22)

(2022/C 158/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jérôme Rivière (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament and the political group Identity and Democracy (ID)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul first, the provisional suspensory decision of 21 January 2022 and, second, the expulsion decision of 25 January 2022;

— order the immediate suspension of both decisions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action seeking the annulment, first, of the decision of 21 January 2022 of the bureau of the political group Identity and Democracy (ID) suspending him from the group for a period of two months and, second, of the decision of 25 January 2022 of the political group Identity and Democracy (ID) expelling him from that group, the applicant complains that, as to form, those decisions fail to comply with the basic disciplinary process and, as to substance, they have no valid basis.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 March 2022 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Impossible Foods (IMPOSSIBLE BURGER)

(Case T-131/22)

(2022/C 191/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, M. Goldmann and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Impossible Foods Inc. (Redwood City, California, United States)

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 IMPOSSIBLE BURGER — European Union trade mark No 17 968 798

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 December 2021 in Case R 973/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the intervener to pay the costs before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94(1), second sentence, read in conjunction with Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 95(1), first sentence, read in conjunction with third sentence 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;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that by relying on the factually incorrect reasons provided in the Contested Measures to designate the applicant, the Council committed a manifest error of assessment. This is strengthened by the fact that the applicant in fact itself provided the Council with detailed information rebutting the reasons underlying its designation prior thereto, as it became aware of false news reports containing such information being published.
Action brought on 29 March 2022 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-165/22)

(2022/C 198/92)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 7 February 2022 to reject the applicant’s request for access to documents of the Commission by refusing to provide him with copies of all of the correspondence that it has exchanged, since 1 April 2020, with the company AstraZeneca plc or with its subsidiaries as well as with the Federal Chancellery of Germany or with the Federal Ministry of Health, relating to the company AstraZeneca plc or its subsidiaries, and in particular to the quantity of Covid-19 vaccines offered by AstraZeneca plc and its delivery deadlines;

— 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 four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law: The applicant has a right to access the European Commission documents at issue pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The refusal by the Commission infringes that provision.

2. Second plea in law: The ground for exclusion laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the applicant’s right of access. That ground for exclusion is limited in time and applies only to pending court proceedings and legal advice. The proceedings pending in Belgium against AstraZeneca under No 2021/48/C relate to a substantially different set of facts and have already been disposed of by the judgment of 18 June 2021.

3. Third plea in law: The ground for exclusion laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the applicant’s right of access. The public interest in the disclosure of personal data prevails.

4. Fourth plea in law: The ground for exclusion laid down in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not preclude the applicant’s right of access. The requested information does not contain any trade secrets within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2016/943, (2) as it is known and there have been no reasonable steps to keep it secret.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (OJ 2016 L 157, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 March 2022 — General Wire Spring v EUIPO (GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS)

(Case T-151/22)

(2022/C 198/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: General Wire Spring Co. (McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: E. Carrillo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS — Application for registration No 1 577 530

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2022 in Case R 1452/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present action;

— annul the contested decision the Firth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO insofar as it dismisses the appeal filed by the applicant before it and failed to partially annul the EUIPO’s decision in relation to the refusal of registration of EUTM (IR) application No. 1 577 530 GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS for the objected goods in classes 7 and 9.

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 4 April 2022 — Novartis v EUIPO — AstraZeneca (BREZTREV)

(Case T-174/22)

(2022/C 207/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Nordemann-Schiffel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AstraZeneca AB (Södertälje, 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 BREZTREV — Application for registration No 18 088 373

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2022 in Case R 738/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

annul the applicants’ payslips for June 2021 in so far as they are indicative of a decision to withdraw the flat-rate allowance owed by way of reimbursement of the costs of travelling from the place of employment to the place of origin;
Action brought on 22 April 2022 — Synesis v Council

(Case T-215/22)

(2022/C 222/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Synesis TAA (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 97) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 3), in so far as they concern the applicant;

— pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the argument that the contested measures are unlawful in so far as they concern the applicant, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and in particular infringed its examination obligations. In the applicant’s view, the Council failed to provide any concrete evidence to justify the validity of the applicant’s inclusion on the list in the contested measures.
Action brought on 25 April 2022 — CiviBank v ECB

(Case T-220/22)

(2022/C 237/85)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Banca di Cividale SpA — Società Benefit (CiviBank) (Cividale del Friuli, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, A. Cassano and A. Cogoni, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) (ECB-SSM-2022-IT-7 (QLF-2021-0155)) of 23 March 2022 (contained in a single act or in several acts) by which the ECB authorised Banca Sparkasse and Fondazione Sparkasse to: (i) acquire and maintain a shareholding higher than 10 % of the share capital and voting rights of CiviBank; (ii) exceed that shareholding and acquire directly a controlling shareholding in CiviBank, following, and as a result of, the public global voluntary tender offers launched on the market on 9 December 2021 under Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) of 15 October 2013, Articles 19, 22, 53 and 67 of the Consolidated Banking Law and its related implementing rules.

— order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging incorrect application of Article 23 of Directive 2013/36, infringement of Article 86 of Regulation 468/2014 and of Article 49 TFEU and breach of the general principle of EU law of non-discrimination in assessing the suitability of the purchaser.

2. Second plea in law, alleging failure to state sufficient reasons in the contested decision and resulting infringement of Article 296 TFEU, of the rights of the defence guaranteed by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of the corresponding general legal principles which can be inferred from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).