ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 22 October 2019 – Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant v Commission

(Case T-716/19)

(2020/C 10/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Interpipe Niko Tube OOO (Nikopol, Ukraine) and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant PAO (Dnipro, Ukraine) (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1295 of 1 August 2019 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1469 imposing a definitive antidumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 2(3), first paragraph, Article 2(4), first paragraph, Article 2(6), first sentence, and Article 9(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (‘the Basic Regulation’) (1) and Article 2.2.2, first sentence, and Article 9.3 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement by including in the dumping margin calculation the selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) expenses for the sales made by the applicants to their related domestic trader.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by deducting from the applicants’ export price an amount corresponding to the SG&A expenses of the related trader and a notional profit of an unrelated importer as an adjustment pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) and Article 2(10), first paragraph, of the Basic Regulation.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation and unlawfully calculated the applicants’ dumping margin by applying a different methodology for the determination of the normal value and the export price of the applicants as compared to the methodology applied in the previous investigation which led to the imposition of the measure being reviewed.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicants submit that the Commission infringed the rights of defence of the applicants in that the second additional disclosure, received on the same date as the date of publication of the contested regulation, contains new factual elements upon which the applicants were not given the opportunity to comment.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2019 L 176, p. 21).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that, the defendant anyway breached Articles 8(1), (9) & (10) and Article 10(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, and Articles 13(1), (9) & (10) and Article 16(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union, when it invalidated undertaking invoices and then directed customs to collect duties, as if no valid undertaking invoices had been issued and communicated to customs at the time the goods were declared for release in free circulation. The applicant therefore raises a plea of illegality against Article 3(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, Article 2(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367 of 1 March 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, and Article 2(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366 of 1 March 2017 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, which give the defendant the power to declare undertaking invoices invalid and order customs to collect duties on past imports released for free circulation.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 November 2019 — Ultrasun v EUIPO (ultrasun)

(Case T-805/19)

(2020/C 27/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ultrasun AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: Registration of EU figurative mark in colour containing the word element ‘ultrasun’ — Registration No 17 898 795

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 in Case R 531/2019-4

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before 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;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 November 2019 — Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional v EUIPO (El Clasico)

(Case T-809/19)

(2020/C 27/66)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Casas Feu, 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 figurative mark El Clasico — Application for registration No 1 379 292

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2019 in Case R 1966/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— give judgment allowing the registration in the European Union of the international mark No 1 379 292 El Clásico (mixed) in Class 41 in the name of La Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties. The applicant submits that the Commission infringed the right to effective judicial protection and thus Article 2 TEU, read in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in finding that the President of the Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (Office for the protection of competition and consumers, Poland) ‘seems to be a body which is particularly appropriate to examine the issues raised … in the complaint’ (point 21 of the contested decision), thus at least failing to have regard to the reasonable doubts as to the upholding of the rule of law in Poland and, in connection with this, the independence of the courts and of the President of the Office for the protection of competition and consumers. The Commission failed to have regard, inter alia, to the issue of the reorganisation of the judicial system in Poland and to the fact that cases in the field of competition and consumer protection are examined by the new Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs in the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland), whose method of appointment is similar to that of the disciplinary chamber.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 November 2019 — Kisscolor Living v EUIPO — Teoxane (KISS COLOR)

(Case T-802/19)

(2020/C 45/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Kisscolor Living GmbH (Bad Homburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Büttner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teoxane SA (Geneva, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark KISS COLOR in white and red — Application for registration No 16 396 996

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 in Case R 2167/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 December 2019 – Tehrani v EUIPO – Blue Genes (Earnest Sewn)

(Case T-853/19)

(2020/C 54/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Reza Hossein Khan Tehrani (Nordhorn, Germany) (represented by: D. Wiedemann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Blue Genes, Inc. (Gardena, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Earnest Sewn – European Union trade mark No 12 302 071

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 in Case R 531/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 30 January 2019 in Case No 12618 C concerning the application for a declaration of invalidity against European Union trade mark No 12 302 071‘Earnest Sewn’;

— order that European Union trade mark No 12 302 071‘Earnest Sewn’ remain registered;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 18 December 2019 – Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission

(Case T-865/19)

(2020/C 61/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot (Nevinnomyssk, Russia), AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ (Novomoskovsk, Russia) (represented by: E. Gergondet, and P. Vander Schueren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the action admissible;

— annul the Contested Regulation, as far as it applies to the applicants; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In their application, the applicants request the Court to annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 (1).

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 2(1), 2(9) and 2(10) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) (the ‘basic Regulation’) and committed manifest errors of assessment by incorrectly determining the export price and the normal value and acted in breach of Articles 2(3), 2(4) and 2(5) of the basic Regulation by making its ordinary course of trade determination based on adjusted costs of production.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 3(2), 3(3) and 3(6) of the basic Regulation, committed manifest errors of assessment, violated the right to sound administration and violated the principle of non-discrimination as a result of its improper analysis of the effect of dumped imports on prices in the Union market for like products.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 3(7) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation, committed manifest errors of assessment and violated the right to sound administration by failing to assess other known factors causing injury to the Union industry and by failing to ensure that the injury caused by those other factors is not attributed to the dumped imports.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 7(2a), 9(4), 9(5), 18(1), 18(4) and 18(5) of the basic Regulation, committed manifest errors of assessment, violated the right to sound administration and violated the principle of equality and non-discrimination when it decided not to apply the lesser duty rule to imports of the applicants.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 of 8 October 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America (OJ 2019 L 258, p. 21).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 December 2019 – Franz Schröder v EUIPO – RDS Design (MONTANA)

(Case T-855/19)

(2020/C 54/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG (Delbrück-Nordhagen, Germany) (represented by: L. Pechan and N. Fangmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: RDS Design ApS (Allerød, Denmark)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark MONTANA – International registration designating the European Union No 1 211 278

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2019 in Case R 1006/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity and declare the International trademark registration No. 1 211 278 invalid for the European Union for the contested goods;

— order EUIPO and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

Action brought on 20 December 2019 – Worldwide Spirits Supply v EUIPO – Melfinco (CLEOPATRA QUEEN)

(Case T-870/19)

(2020/C 77/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Worldwide Spirits Supply, Inc. (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: S. Demetriou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Melfinco S.A. (Schaan, Liechtenstein)

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 CLEOPATRA QUEEN – European Union trade mark No 14 027 338

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2019 in Case R 1820/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reverse the invalidity declaring it null and void;

— alternatively,

— substantially alter the content of the contested decision to the extent that the applicant should be invited to produce evidence of genuine use or invited to reach an amicable settlement with Melfinco S.A. in the context of coexistence.

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 27 December 2019 – Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO – Helixor Heilmittel (HELIX ELIXIR)

(Case T-883/19)

(2020/C 68/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Helixor Heilmittel GmbH (Rosenfeld, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade mark HELIX ELIXIR – Application for registration No 15 035 991

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2019 in Case R 100/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— allow the present Appeal;

— annul the contested decision; and/or

— set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Article 8(1)(b) and enter a finding to the effect that there does not exist likelihood of confusion between the confronted trademarks;

— issue a new Resolution granting EUTM Application No 15 035 991 HELIX ELIXIR for all the applied goods; and

— order EUIPO (and Intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

Grounds for annulment concerning the disciplinary measure imposed. The applicant alleges, in this regard, procedural irregularity, infringement of Article 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, misuse of power, failure to respect the confidentiality of the OLAF report for the points of enquiry closed without further action, upholding the allegations despite closure without further action and breach of the presumption of innocence. The applicant also alleges infringement of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, breach of the rights of defence, manifest error of assessment of the criteria set out in Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and failure to state reasons.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 January 2020 – Deutsche Post v EUIPO – Pošta Slovenije (Representation of a device of a horn)

(Case T-25/20)

(2020/C 68/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pošta Slovenije d.o.o. (Maribor, Slovenia)

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 figurative mark (Representation of a device of a horn) – Application for registration No 17 088 361

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2019 in Case R 994/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 January 2020 — Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation v EUIPO (Heartfulness)

(Case T-48/20)

(2020/C 87/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation (Manapakkam, India) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, 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 figurative mark Heartfulness — Application for registration No 1 433 232

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2019 in Case R 1266/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay for all expenses of this procedure.

Pleas in law

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

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

Action brought on 3 January 2020 — Forbo Financial Services v EUIPO — Windmöller (Canoleum)

(Case T-3/20)

(2020/C 77/76)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Forbo Financial Services AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Fröhlich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Windmöller GmbH (Augustdorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Canoleum — Application for registration No 16 736 548

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 October 2019 in Case R 773/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 February 2020 — Abitron Germany v EUIPO — Hetronic International (NOVA)

(Case T-75/20)

(2020/C 103/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Abitron Germany GmbH (Langquaid, Germany) (represented by: T. Matschke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hetronic International, Inc. (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 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: EU word mark NOVA — EU trade mark No 13 711 718

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2019 in Case R 521/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare EU trade mark NOVA No 13 711 718 as invalid;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 2, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the EC Merger Regulation (1) by clearing a transaction resulting in a dominant position of the merged entity and a significant impediment of effective competition (‘SIEC’) in the German market for the retail supply of TV signal transmission to multi-dwelling units (‘MDU’) customers. The Commission’s conclusion that the Parties were neither actual (direct/indirect) nor potential competitors pre-Transaction and that the Transaction would not lead to a significant deterioration of the competitive conditions is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment. In particular, the Commission failed to take account of the negative repercussions of the merged entity’s superior market power in the markets for wholesale supply and acquisition of TV channels and for wholesale TV signal transmission (the ‘wholesale TV markets’) in the MDU market.