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

Action brought on 28 December 2021 — Fieldpoint (Cyprus) v EUIPO (HYPERLIGHTEYEWEAR)

(Case T-801/21)

(2022/C 73/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fieldpoint (Cyprus) LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: P. Rath and S. Gebele, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark HYPERLIGHTEYEWEAR — Application for registration No 18 335 969

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2021 in Case R 1165/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare European Union trade mark application No 18 335 969 ‘HYPERLIGHTEYEWEAR’ to be eligible for registration;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 27 October 2021 — NO v Commission

(Case T-708/21)

(2022/C 84/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NO (represented by: E. Smartt, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Commission failed to act, in breach of its obligations under Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in that it did not define its position in response to the applicant’s complaints on, inter alia, State Aid by Ireland;

— order the Commission to bear its costs, and;

— order the applicant’s costs to be reimbursed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:

In accordance with Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union the Commission was obliged to define its position in response to the applicant’s complaints on, inter alia, State Aid by Ireland, on or before the expiry of a reasonable period since the applicant’s complaints. In connection with the failure to act within a reasonable period, the applicant called on the Commission to act, by letter of 28 June 2021. In reply to the applicant’s call to act, the Commission failed to define its position within the prescribed period following the applicant’s call to act.

Considering that under these circumstances the Commission’s failure to define its position is beyond dispute, the applicant brought the present action for failure to act under Article 265 TFEU.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO (VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT)

(Case T-9/22)

(2022/C 84/71)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. (Dębica, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT — Application No 18 115 249

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2021 in Case R 771/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and remit the case to EUIPO for further consideration; or

— amend the contested decision by declaring that, in relation to the mark ‘VITA-MIN MULTIPLE SPORT’ applied for in respect of goods in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement, there is no absolute ground for refusal, pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of [Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark], based on the sign’s lack of any distinctive character or its descriptive character;

— make an appropriate order as to costs.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to integrity and dignity and the existence of several manifest errors of assessment. The applicant claims that the defendant failed to comply with its duty to preserve and protect its dignity and its integrity, having regard to the acts of violence by security personnel against him and the finding of which is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 January 2022 — Nemport Liman İşletmeleri Ve Özel Antrepo Nakliye Ticaret v EUIPO — Newport Europe (NEMPORT LİMAN İŞLETMELERİ)

(Case T-18/22)

(2022/C 84/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nemport Liman İşletmeleri Ve Özel Antrepo Nakliye Ticaret AŞ (Izmir, Turkey) (represented by: V. Martín Santos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Newport Europe BV (Moerdijk, Netherlands)

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 figurative mark NEMPORT LİMAN İŞLETMELERİ — Application for registration No 18 101 775

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 November 2021 in Case R 562/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision so that the trade mark at issue is granted in its entirety;

— order the applicant/intervener and/or the EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal, and all procedural costs generated by EUIPO decisions.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 January 2022 — Kaminski v EUIPO — Polfarmex (SYRENA)

(Case T-35/22)

(2022/C 119/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Arkadiusz Kaminski (Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: W. Trybowski, E. Pijewska and M. Mazurek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Polfarmex S.A. (Kutno, 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 word mark SYRENA — European Union trade mark (EUTM) No 9 262 767

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2021 in jointed Cases R 1952/2020-1 and R 1953/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision in its part concerning the appeal in case R 1952/2020-1, that is, with regard to points 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the sentence (operative part) of the contested decision, by: dismissal of the appeal in case R 1952/2020-1, declaration that the trade mark ‘SYRENA’ (EUTM 9 262 767) remains registered for ‘cars’ in Class 12 and ordering Polfarmex S.A. to bear the applicant’s costs in the appeal proceedings in case R 1952/2020-1;

— order that the costs of the proceedings are to be paid by EUIPO and by Polfarmex;

alternatively:

— annul the contested decision in the above mentioned part, i.e. to the extent that the Board of Appeal revoked the registration of the trade mark ‘SYRENA’ (EUTM 9 262 767) in respect of ‘cars’ other than ‘racing cars’ in Class 12;

— order that the costs of the proceedings are to be paid by EUIPO and by Polfarmex.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Articles 18(1), 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 3 and 4 of the Basic Regulation (2), made a manifest error of assessment by failing to consider the submissions of the EU Plywood Associations in its determination of the product scope, the composition and definition of the Union industry and breached the principle of good administration. In fact, as an unbiased investigating authority, the Commission should have focused on evidence submitted by the EU Plywood Associations on its own initiative, verified it and given a proper factual and legal assessment in the context of the product scope, which is a fundamental element of an anti-dumping investigation affecting all findings. The Commission also effectively rejected/disregarded any evidence or argument from the applicant concerning the EU Plywood Associations’ submission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 January 2022 — Romedor Pharma v EUIPO — Perfect Care Distribution (Cerviron)

(Case T-37/22)

(2022/C 138/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romedor Pharma SRL (Focşani, Romania) (represented by: E. Dicu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Perfect Care Distribution (Bucharest, Romania)

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 CERVIRON — EU trade mark No 18 100 664

Procedure before EUIPO: proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2021 in Case R 520/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the action as formulated and reasoned;

— annul the contested decision and, consequently, uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of EU trade mark No 18 100 664.

Plea in law
—

order the European Investment Bank to pay the applicant the allowance referred to in Article 11 of the AXA insurance policy, for permanent invalidity, at the maximum rate, as well as the benefits provided for in Article 9.1.13 of the Staff Rules, in addition to the sum of EUR 24 000 for the non-material damage caused;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Homy Casa v EUIPO — Albatros International (Chairs)

(Case T-89/22)

(2022/C 148/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Homy Casa Ltd (Guangzhou, China) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design (Chairs) — Community design No 2745 554-0002

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 November 2021 in Case R 837/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Kampete v Council

(Case T-96/22)

(2022/C 148/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

— annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in Annex I to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 February 2022 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)

(Case T-106/22)

(2022/C 165/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and C. Milbradt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: M. J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

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 BBQLOUMI — European Union trade mark No 12 898 029

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2021 in Case R 656/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to each bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— The Board of Appeal contravened the case law of the Court of Justice concerning the distinctiveness;

— The Board of appeal wrongly allocated a burden of proof on earlier registered mark holder, the applicant, to show a required level of distinctiveness;
—

declare the application admissible and consequently: — principally, — declare the action for annulment well founded and rule that the decision of the appointing authority of 24 February 2022 refusing admissibility is null and void on the grounds that: — Article 77 of the Staff Regulations and Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations on which the notice of determination sent to the applicant is based are unlawful; — by not proposing to the applicant, in her notice of determination, any repayment of the pension rights unaccounted for by the competent European authority, the European Commission failed in its duty to have regard to the welfare of officials; — by not proposing to the applicant, in her notice of determination, any repayment of the pension rights unaccounted for by the competent European authority, the European Commission failed to comply with the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination; — and refer the file back to the appointing authority so that it may determine the amount to be repaid to the applicant; — in the alternative, — declare the action for compensation based on unjust enrichment well founded on the ground that the applicant has been impoverished by the amount of her pension rights contributed in her national pension scheme not taken into account by the competent European authority and which have, by the same token, enriched the pension fund of the European Union; — order the Commission to compensate the applicant for two financial losses suffered, assessed at the date of lodging this application at a principal amount of EUR 55 401,07;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging unequal treatment in so far as questions which had been devised by the selection panel to be put to candidates were not put to him and other questions which were put to him did not correspond to that predefined list. The applicant submits, in that regard, that this does not make it possible to ensure that they were also put to other candidates. The applicant further submits that his interview lasted for less time than expected, which may have put him at a disadvantage compared with the other candidates and that it cannot be ruled out that he could have achieved a better result if he had been heard on all aspects of the oral test.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that by including the applicant in the annexes to the Contested Measures, the Council made a manifest error of assessment. Namely, the applicant claims that the Contested Measures provide unsubstantiated, factually incorrect and unfounded reasons for his designation. Further, the deficient reasons provided do not demonstrate a sufficiently substantive link to the scope of the measures.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 March 2022 — Transformers Manufacturing Company v EUIPO — H&F (TMC TRANSFORMERS)

(Case T-163/22)

(2022/C 207/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Transformers Manufacturing Company Pty Ltd (Melbourne, Australia) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: H&F Srl (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark TMC TRANSFORMERS — Application for registration No 17 262 668

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2022 in Case R 1211/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— first of all and principally, acknowledge H&F Srl’s lack of capacity and declare the proceedings at first and second instance before EUIPO inadmissible;

— alter the contested decision on the ground that it is unfounded in fact and law and based on insufficient reasoning;

— in the alternative, overturn the contested decision on the ground that it is unfounded in fact and law and refer the action back to EUIPO;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs for the three stages of legal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Lack of capacity to bring proceedings on the part of H&F Srl, a matter on which EUIPO did not rule and for which it did not provide sufficient reasons;

— Incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009) in fact and in law;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, on the ground that the disciplinary penalty imposed on the applicant was not proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct committed, taking into account the assessment criteria laid down in Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and did not take account of mitigating circumstances.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 April 2022 — Farco-Pharma v EUIPO — Infarco (FARCO)

(Case T-179/22)

(2022/C 207/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Farco-Pharma GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Schoene, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Infarco, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark FARCO in red, white and black — Application No 17 838 178

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2022 in Case R 172/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, by which the Board of Appeal confirmed that Opposition No B 3 054 342 against figurative mark No 17 838 178 was successful, and remit the case to EUIPO for reconsideration.

Plea in law
Action brought on 13 April 2022 — Polynt v ECHA

(Case T-192/22)

(2022/C 222/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polynt SpA (Scanzorosciate, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and S. Abdel-Qader, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency, sent by letter of 4 February 2022 (FUP- DEV-01-21200655590-58-0000-CCH-1-2_FTR_NOTIF), informing of a failure to respond to a dossier evaluation decision;

— declare — or order ECHA to adopt a new measure declaring — that the Applicant is released from the obligation to provide any information to ECHA following the cease of production and consequent unavailability of the substance concerned due to force majeure; and

— order ECHA to pay all costs of these 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, alleging that the Defendant breached the principle of force majeure when it held that the cease of manufacture of the substance 1,3-dioxo-2-benzofuran-5- carboxylic acid with nonan-1-ol (EC Number 941-303-6) (hereinafter ‘the substances’) after the adoption of the final compliance check decision for reasons of force majeure does not relieve the Appellant from the obligation to provide the information requested in the initial compliance check decision on the substances.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Defendant breached Article 50(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) (‘REACH Regulation’).

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Defendant breached Articles 5 and 6 of the REACH Regulation.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Defendant infringed the principle of proportionality.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 April 2022 — Perfetti Van Melle v EUIPO (Representation of a cylindrical container with a wavy outline)

(Case T-199/22)

(2022/C 222/59)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle SpA (Lainate, Italy) (represented by: P. Testa and C. Pappalardo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of a cylindrical container with a wavy outline) — Application for registration No 18 355 641

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2022 in Case R 1530/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law