ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 27 August 2019 — Novomatic v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Power Stars)

(Case T-588/19)

(2019/C 337/23)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: M. Ringer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Lübbecke, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Power Stars — Application for registration No 8 435 695

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 in Case R 2038/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the appeal concerning the revocation of EU trade mark registration No 8 435 695 in respect of the goods ‘hardware, in particular for casino and amusement arcade games, for gaming machines, slot machines, video lottery gaming machines via the internet; casino games, automatic gaming machines and gaming machines, in particular for commercial use in casinos and amusement arcades, with or without a prize payout or games of chance via the internet; slot machines and/or electronic money gaming machines with or without a prize; electronic or electrotechnical gaming apparatus, automatic gaming machines, gaming machines, slot machines which are operated by means of coins, tokens, banknotes, tickets or by means of electronic, magnetic or biometric storage media, in particular for commercial use in casinos and amusement arcades, with or without a prize payout; housings for slot machines, gaming apparatus, gaming machines and gaming machines; electric, electronic or electromechanical apparatus for applying bingo games, lottery games or video lottery games or for betting offices, and which are connected or unconnected; electropneumatic drawing machines (gaming machines)’ and amend that decision so that the other party’s application for cancellation is rejected to that extent and also that the other party is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and cancellation proceedings;

— in the alternative: annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the appeal concerning the revocation of EU trade mark registration No 8 435 695 in respect of the above goods and refer the case back, to that extent, to EUIPO;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which confers on the applicant the right to good administration and, in particular, the right to have his affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 September 2019 – Essential Export v EUIPO – Shenzhen Liouyi International Trading (TOTU)

(Case T-633/19)

(2019/C 383/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Essential Export SA (San José, Costa Rica) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shenzhen Liouyi International Trading Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

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 TOTU in red and black – Application for registration No 16 736 712

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2019 in Case R 362/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— reverse the contested decision;

— award the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 September 2019 — Bartolomé Alvarado and Grupo Preciados Place v EUIPO — Alpargatas (ALPARGATUS PASOS ARTESANALES)

(Case T-606/19)

(2019/C 372/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: José Fernando Bartolomé Alvarado (Madrid, Spain) and Grupo Preciados Place, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. García Remacha, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alpargatas SA (São Paulo, Brazil)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark ALPARGATUS PASOS ARTESANALES — European Union trade mark No 14 750 624

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2019 in Case R 1825/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Find that the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 20 June 2019, which was notified to the applicants on 5 July 2019, has been submitted in due form and within the corresponding deadline; and, by way of the appropriate procedural steps, give judgment upholding the present action and, accordingly, annul the contested decision, reject any and all of the claims of the company ALPARTAGAS S.A., and order that the registration of EU trade mark No 14 750 624 be maintained, with all the legal consequences associated therewith.

Pleas in law

— Challenge to the contested decision with regard to the res judicata relied on by the applicant;

— Challenge to the Office’s assessment of the similarity between the opposing marks;

— The decision creates a monopoly of the name ‘alpargata’, thereby infringing the trade mark regime and the position adopted by the Office itself;
The activation by the Gabinete do Ordenador Nacional para a Cooperação entre a República de Moçambique e a UE (Office of the National Authorising Officer for Cooperation between the Republic of Mozambique and the EU) (‘GON’) of the guarantees issued by the applicant, which forms the basis of the present action and which resulted in the adoption of the Commission’s decision which is now being challenged, constitutes a manifest infringement of the principle of good faith and a clear abuse of rights. The fact that the applicant did not pay the guarantees, which were unlawfully activated by GON, led the European Commission to adopt the contested decision by which the applicant is excluded for a period of three years from participating in public procurement procedures governed by Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1877 and by Regulation (EU/Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council or from being selected to implement Union funds due to alleged grave professional misconduct and alleged significant deficiencies in complying with the main obligations in the performance of a contract financed by the Union’s budget.
—

rule that the European Commission unlawfully failed to take: — first, a decision safeguarding the European citizenship of applicants of the United Kingdom who enjoy a private and family life in the other Member States of the European Union and did not have the right to vote on whether their Member State of origin should leave the European Union, based solely on the exercise of their freedom of movement (‘the 15-year rule’), irrespective of whether or not there is an agreement on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, — secondly, a binding decision uniformly applicable in the other 27 Member States of the European Union in which citizens of the United Kingdom live, comprising various measures with regard to entry, stay, social rights and occupation, to apply in the absence of an agreement on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union;
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error in the European Commission’s decision of 12 July 2019, taken by the current Director of the Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DEVCO), document Ares(2019)4611765 — 16/07/2019, which excludes the applicant, for a period of three years, from public procurement and from grant award procedures financed by the European Development Found (EDF) under Council Regulation (EU) 2015/323, and ordering the publication of the factual circumstances of that exclusion information on the Commission’s website: The applicant submits that the Commission erred in its decision as regards the factual circumstances, specifically as regards the delays in the execution of the work, which cannot be attributed to the applicant. The conciliation procedure provided for under the contract should be concluded, and the applicant cannot be criticised for the failure to set up an arbitration tribunal.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 September 2019 – Ace of spades v EUIPO – Krupp and Borrmann (Shape of Champagne Grande reserve bottle)

(Case T-621/19)

(2019/C 399/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ace of spades Holdings LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gerhard Ernst Krupp (Munich, Germany) and Elmar Borrmann (Reith, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of Champagne Grande reserve bottle) – Application for registration No 16 252 637

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2019 in Case R 2/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— upheld the present Appeal;

— annul the contested decision, and/or set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Articles 8(1) (b) EUTMR and 8(5) EUTMR and enter a finding to the effect that there does exist likelihood of confusion between the confronted trademarks;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of 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 14 October 2019 – Teva Pharmaceutical Industries v EUIPO (Moins de migraine pour vivre mieux)

(Case T-696/19)

(2019/C 413/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel) (represented by: J. Bogatz and Y. Stone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Moins de migraine pour vivre mieux – Application for registration No 17 942 393

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 August 2019 in Case R 778/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law

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

so far as necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the present case, the European Parliament is ordered to produce the opinions produced by the European Parliament’s legal service, which were apparently issued on 16 July 2018 and on 3 December 2018, without prejudice as to the precise date, but in any event were issued before the adoption of the decision of the Parliament’s Bureau of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ C 466, 28.12.2018, p. 8);
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment and failed to adequately state reasons in wrongly characterising, in the contested decision, the Group Financing Exemption as a derogation from the normal operation of the reference system.
1.

First plea in law, alleging the illegality of Article 1 of the contested decision on the following grounds: a. the Commission erred in law and shows manifest errors of assessment determining that the Group Financing Exemption constitutes an (economic) advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU by, in particular: i. failing to take into account: the historical background to the introduction of CFC rules in the UK’s corporate tax system; limitations imposed on the UK through the application of EU law, in particular freedom of establishment; territoriality and other policy reasons for the structure of the CFC rules introduced in the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 with effect from 1 January 2013; and the scope of fiscal sovereignty of Member States, including the UK, in designing CFC rules; ii. asserting that the optional character of a claim under Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 constitutes favourable treatment giving rise to an advantage. b. the Commission erred in law and shows manifest errors of assessment determining that the Group Financing Exemption constitutes a selective advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU by, in particular: i. As regards the relevant reference framework: 1. Wrongly identifying the reference framework as being composed solely of the CFC rules and/or solely Chapter 5 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010; 2. Wrongly determining the objective of the reference system as being solely to tax profits arising from UK activities and assets that have been artificially diverted from the UK, without due regard to whether the relevant targeted transactions actually give rise to risk of erosion of the UK tax base. ii. As regards the determination of a derogation from the reference framework: 1. Wrongly assessing the relevance and importance of significant people functions; 2. Wrongly assessing the comparability of ‘qualifying loan relationships’ with loans (i) to UK-resident related parties and (ii) to third parties; 3. Unlawfully relying on Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164; (1) 4. Mistakenly assessing the comparable risks to infringement of freedom of establishment for exempted and non-exempted categories of CFC. iii. As regards justification for the alleged derogation, 1. Wrongly deciding that the justification relating to the need for the system to be manageable and administrable did not extend to significant people functions; 2. Wrongly deciding that the Group Financing Exemption was not justified by reference to compliance with freedom of establishment.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated Article 107(1) TFEU by holding that the alleged aid measure provides a selective advantage: a) to the companies making use of the 75 % exemption for low-risk qualifying loan relationships, because the Commission has: — wrongly identified the UK CFC regime as the reference system; — erred in law by concluding that the 75 % exemption constitutes a derogation from the reference tax system, on the basis that: (i) the finding of a derogation is based erroneously on the regulatory technique; (ii) the significant people functions test is not the central test for the UK CFC regime; and (iii) qualifying and non-qualifying loan relationships are not in the same legal and factual situation and, in any event, erred in law in applying by analogy or placing undue reliance upon the terms of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164. (1) — erred in fact and in law by concluding that the 75 % exemption is not justified by the nature and the overall structure of the tax system in the same way as the Group Financing Exemption that applies to non-trading finance profits falling within Section 371EC of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010. b) to the companies making use of the matched interest and qualifying resources exemptions, because it has: — wrongly identified the UK CFC rules as the reference system; — erred in law by concluding that the matched interest and qualifying resources exemptions constitute a derogation from the reference tax system, on the basis that: (i) the finding of a derogation is based erroneously on the regulatory technique and the significant people functions test is not the central test for the UK CFC rules; (ii) taxpayers qualifying for the matched interest and qualifying resources exemptions are not in the same legal and factual situation as taxpayers who do not so qualify. — erred in fact and in law by concluding that the matched interest and qualifying resources exemptions are not justified by the nature and the overall structure of the tax system.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 November 2019 – Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO – OmniVision (Hydrovision)

(Case T-817/19)

(2020/C 27/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: OmniVision GmbH (Puchheim, 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 figurative mark Hydrovision – Application for registration No 16 286 841

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2019 in Case R 2371/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the EUIPO for reconsideration; or

— alter the contested decision;

— award the costs in the Applicant’s favor.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of 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 10 December 2019 — Première Vision v EUIPO — Vente-Privee.com (PV)

(Case T-836/19)

(2020/C 45/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Première Vision (Lyon, France) (represented by: C. Champagner Katz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vente-Privee.com SA (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark PV — Application for registration No 13 999 578

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2019 in Case R 2125/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the opponent to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of 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 18 December 2019 — easyCosmetic Swiss v EUIPO — U.W.I. Unternehmensberatungs- und Wirtschaftsinformations (easycosmetic)

(Case T-858/19)

(2020/C 45/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: easyCosmetic Swiss GmbH (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Terheggen und S.E. Sullivan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: U.W.I. Unternehmensberatungs- und Wirtschaftsinformations GmbH (Bad Nauheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark easycosmetic — EU trade mark No 13 801 675

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 in Case R 973/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that, even assuming that the CFC measures in question prima facie constituted aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the contested decision wrongly concluded that there was no justification that could apply to defend the compatibility of the measures in question with EU State aid rules. In addition, the contested decision is irrational and inconsistent, in that the Commission has correctly accepted that Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified in cases where the only reason for a CFC charge to apply under the counterfactual of the said Chapter 5 would be the ‘UK connected capital’ test, on the basis that that test may be excessively difficult to operate in practice, but at the same time, and without providing adequate reasoning, the Commission contends that the said Chapter 9 is never justified in cases where the significant people functions test would cause a CFC charge to apply under the said Chapter 5. In fact, the significant people functions test is excessively difficult to apply in practice, such that the Commission should have found the said Chapter 9 to be justified in the context of that test as well and, hence, it should have concluded that there is no State aid.
the applicant’s election to the Czech Senate in 2018, in competition with candidates of ANO 2011 controlled by the Czech prime minister.

The applicant alleges that refusal by the Court to accept the present case would equal a denial of justice, leading to an effective impossibility for the members of national parliaments to control their members of government in relation to acts performed in the European Council or the Council.
—

In that regard, the applicants submit that the Commission erroneously assessed the evidence adduced in support of the allegation of infringement of Article 101 TFEU in so far as it concluded that it is unlikely that the PLP (‘Patent Licensing Program’) and the licensing agreements between Philips, Osram and Zumtobel are an agreement or concerted practice within the meaning of that provision, that it accepted, without verifying, that the conduct is unilateral (which is nevertheless an admission on its part of an infringement of Article 102 TFEU), and failed to take into account that even a unilaterally concluded agreement such as the one in question could conceal a prohibited agreement. In addition, it does not fall to the bodies making the complaint to show actual damage caused to the suppliers’ market, as it is sufficient for them to adduce evidence on the basis of which the Commission could have and should have conducted further investigations.