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

Action brought on 18 December 2019 — Brasserie St Avold v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)

(Case T-862/19)

(2020/C 61/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Brasserie St Avold (Saint-Avold, France) (represented by: P. Greffe, 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 a tridimensional sign (Shape of a bottle) — Application for registration No 1 408 065

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2019 in Case R 466/2019-4

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 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 4 December 2019 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA)

(Case T-829/19)

(2020/C 54/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bacardi & Co. Ltd (Meyrin, Switzerland)

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 BLEND 42 VODKA — Application for registration No 12 945 879

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 in Case R 2531/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— join the proceedings on the applications against the decision of the defendant of 5 September 2019 in Cases R 2531/2018-2, R 2532/2018-2 and R 2533/2018-2;

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and the intervener to pay the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 13 December 2019 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-850/19)

(2020/C 68/52)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Tsaousi, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul European Commission Implementing Decision C(2019) 7094 final of 7 October 2019 on measures SA.39119 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2014/CP) implemented by the Hellenic Republic in the form of interest subsidies and guarantees, linked to the fires of 2007, which concerns only the agricultural sector; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant raises three pleas in law supporting its claim for annulment.

1. First plea in law, alleging that there is no State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU: misapplication and misinterpretation of the conditions under which the State aid is incompatible with the internal market, error of fact, failure to state reasons for the contested decision and infringement by the Commission of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the aid at issue is compatible with the internal market since it constitutes aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters. Misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU, error of fact and failure to state reasons

3. Third plea in law, based on the fact that the contested decision was adopted outside the scope of Commission’s competence ratione temporis, as defined by Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589, (1) and previously by Article 15 of Regulation 659/1999, (2) and in any event, in breach of the principles of legal certainty, of adjudication within a reasonable period, of the rights of defence and of sound administration. The call for repayment is contrary to the principles of proportionality and legal certainty.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9)

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
Action brought on 30 December 2019 — Marc Folschette and Others v Commission

(Case T-884/19)

(2020/C 61/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Marc Folschette (Leudelange, Luxembourg), Tetyana Grygorenko (Leudelange) and Professional Business Solutions SA (Leudelange) (represented by: N. Bauer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— allow the application in its present form;

— declare that the application is substantiated;

— declare that the non-contractual liability of the defendant is incurred;

— order the defendant, in respect of the heads of claim set out below, to pay to: — Mr Marc Folschette the total amount of EUR 219 210 (in words: two hunded and twenty-four thousand and twenty-five euros and ninety-five cents); — Ms Tetyana Grygorenko the total amount of EUR 75 000 (in words: seventy-five thousand euros); — the private joint stock company, Professional Business Solutions SA, the total amount of EUR 500 000 (in words: five hundred thousand euros);

— together with statutory interest at the rate prescribed by law, from the acquittal judgment of the Court of Appeal of 11 January 2017, or, in the alternative, from the date of the present application until final settlement;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

— reserve for the applicants all other rights, pleas and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging a sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of EU law intended to confer rights on individuals. The applicants complain that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), which is a service of the European Commission, infringed intentionally and sufficiently seriously several rules of EU law, in serious and manifest disregard of the limits imposed on its discretion. OLAF did not comply with its obligation to respect the presumption of innocence or its legal obligation to investigate both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence and to close the investigation where no inculpatory evidence has come to light. Those failures to fulfil its obligations are the direct cause of actual, certain and direct damage suffered by the applicants and in respect of which they claim compensation on the basis of Articles 340 and 268 TFEU.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 January 2020 — FF IP v EUIPO — Seven (the DoubleF)

(Case T-23/20)

(2020/C 68/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: FF IP Srl (Mantua, Italy) (represented by: M. Locatelli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven SpA (Leini, 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 EU figurative mark the DoubleF — Application for registration No 15 780 001

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2019 in Case R 2588/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the trade mark the DoubleF registrable as an EU trade mark in respect of all the goods in Classes 18 and 35, as set out in application for registration No 15 780 001;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 January 2020 – Hub Culture v EUIPO – PayPal (VEN)

(Case T-16/20)

(2020/C 61/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hub Culture Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda) (represented by: A. Dellmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PayPal, Inc. (San Jose, 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 VEN – European Union trade mark No 9 158 734

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 November 2019 in Case R 1988/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

declare that the defendant’s contractual claim set out in a letter of 13 November 2019 (ref. Ares (2019)6993009), dated 12 November 2019, and in six debit notes issued by the defendant accompanied by a cover letter for the aggregate amount of EUR 180 893,90 consisting in the amount of EUR 164 449 as to the principal amount, and in the amount of EUR 16 444,90 liquidated damages, is non-existent; and, as a consequence:
—

The plea in law is based on the infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy. The Commission imposed a financial correction on the basis of an alleged infringement of a single provision of EU law, namely Article 25 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (‘Regulation No 809/2014’). However, there was no infringement of that provision. The Commission incorrectly submits that the initiation of an on-the-spot check on the first beneficiary constitutes the implicit announcement of subsequent controls and attributes the same consequences to that implicit announcement as if it were an actual announcement of a check within the meaning of Article 25 of Regulation No 809/2014.
1.

First plea in law, alleging the breach by the defendant of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 2.3 of ECDC Implementing Rule no 20 on appraisal of temporary agents of the ECDC.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and breached Article 3 of the basic Regulation in finding that, on the one hand, payments by the Oil Palm Plantation Fund (‘OPPF’) can be qualified as grants instead of payment for purchases of biodiesel, and on the other hand, that the OPPF payments confer a benefit to biodiesel producers, since the Commission relied on manifestly erroneous counterfactual, and failed to find that the benefit, if any, was passed through to biodiesel blenders.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement and distortion in law and fact of Article 10 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and infringement of Article 4 of the Treaty of the European Union, specifically because the small flag placed by a Member of Parliament on his desk is neither a streamer nor a banner. Furthermore, the presence of such a flag does not interfere with the smooth conduct of parliamentary business, the proper functioning of the Parliament’s technical equipment or the good order of the Chamber, and does not constitute improper behaviour.
—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 8 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 February 2020 — Satabank v ECB

(Case T-72/20)

(2020/C 129/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Satabank plc (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the ECB’s decision dated 26 November 2019 by which the ECB refuses to grant access to its file;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to take into account the applicant’s primary substantive right of access to its file.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB decision is based on an unduly narrow interpretation of Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 (1).

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB decision violated the applicant’s right to an adequately reasoned decision.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s right to be heard.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of legal certainty.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of proportionality.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditur principle.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to an effective remedy pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).
Action brought on 26 February 2020 — Applia v Commission

(Case T-140/20)

(2020/C 161/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Applia — Home Appliance Europe (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Desmedt, L. Salernitano and K. Olsthoorn, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the following parts of the contested act: (i) Article 1(42) of Annex I providing for the definition of ‘declared value’; (ii) paragraph 2(2)(a) of Annex IX in the part where it states that ‘declared values’ correspond to those ‘values given in the technical documentation’; and (iii) paragraph 2(2)(b) of Annex IX;

— annul Table 9 on ‘Verification tolerances’ of Annex IX in the part where it contains parameters that are included in Annex VI and are not listed in Annex V, namely: ‘Total mains efficacy ηTM’, ‘Lumen maintenance factor (for FL and HID)’, ‘Survival factor (for FL and HID)’ and ‘Excitation purity’;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2015 (1).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging the contested act violates Articles 3, 12 and 16 of the Framework Regulation (2) and the Commission acted ultra vires by introducing inconsistent requirements as regards the technical documentation suppliers have to upload in the database and the verification procedure market surveillance authorities are entitled to carry out.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the contested act infringes the principle of legal certainty and of equality of treatment because it fails to establish a clear and univocal regulatory framework putting the suppliers in the impossibility to determine their duties, as regards the data to be provided in the technical documentation; and the applicable verification procedure to assess the accuracy of the data.

(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2015 of 11 March 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of light sources and repealing Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 874/2012 (OJ 2019 L 315, p. 68).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU (OJ 2017 L 198, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 February 2020 — M/S. Indeutsch International v EUIPO — Crafts Americana Group (Representation of chevrons between two parallel lines)

(Case T-124/20)

(2020/C 137/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M/S. Indeutsch International (Noida, India) (represented by: D. Stone, A. Dykes, A. Leonelli, K. Hughes, Solicitors and S. Malynicz, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Crafts Americana Group, Inc. (Vancouver, Washington, 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 figurative mark (Representation of chevrons between two parallel lines) — European Union trade mark No 8 884 264

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 in Case R 2672/2017-G

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 7 April 2020 — Almea v EUIPO — Sanacorp Pharmahandel (Almea)

(Case T-190/20)

(2020/C 191/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Almea Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Furneaux and E. Humphreys, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sanacorp Pharmahandel GmbH (Planegg, 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 Almea — Application for registration No 14 030 126

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2020 in Case R 246/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— decide on costs for the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 February 2020 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (SIENNA SELECTION)

(Case T-130/20)

(2020/C 175/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SIENNA SELECTION — Application for registration No 17 954 903

Contested decision: Decision of the fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2019 in Case R 1675/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant submits that the letters sent by the Parliament do not constitute a statement of reasons which complies with the requirements of the General Financial Regulation, on the ground that they do not set out the qualitative benefits of the successful tender, information in relation to the price criterion, or the final score received by the applicant’s tender.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 April 2020 — Berebene v EUIPO — Consorzio vino Chianti Classico (GHISU)

(Case T-201/20)

(2020/C 191/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Berebene Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Massimiani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consorzio vino Chianti Classico (Radda in Chianti, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark in colour GHISU — Application for registration No 17 232 571

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2020 in Case R 592/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— and, as a result, order the registration of EU figurative mark GHISU No 17 232 571 also for the goods in Class 33 of the Nice Agreement;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration by reason of the examination of the applicant's claim for compensation by an official of CEDEFOP with the status of an incriminating witness; infringement of Article 11a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 April 2020 — FCA Italy v EUIPO — Bettag (Pandem)

(Case T-191/20)

(2020/C 201/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FCA Italy SpA (Torino, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and E. Truffo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Christoph Bettag (Aachen, Germany)

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 Pandem — Application for registration No 17 297 029

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2020 in Case R 1483/2019-5

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 Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle according to which the members of the Selection Board shall have the necessary abilities to make an objective assessment of the performance and professional qualifications of the applicant during the field-related interview, breach of the principle of equal treatment and breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 April 2020 — Biovene Cosmetics v EUIPO — Eugène Perma France (BIOVÈNE)

(Case T-232/20)

(2020/C 201/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biovene Cosmetics, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eugène Perma France (Saint-Denis, France)

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 word mark BIOVÈNE — Application for registration No 16 052 029

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2020 in Case R 739/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul and invalidate the contested decision;

— annul and invalidate the decision of the Opposition Division;

— modify these decisions and agree the granting the application for the trade mark at issue in its entirety;

— order EUIPO and Eugène Parma France to bear the costs of the present appeal proceedings, the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law