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

Action brought on 12 February 2020 — bonnanwalt v EUIPO — Bayerischer Rundfunk and Others (tagesschau)

(Case T-83/20)

(2020/C 114/14)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: bonnanwalt Vermögens- und Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: T. Wendt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bayerischer Rundfunk (Munich, Germany), Hessischer Rundfunk (Frankfurt am Main, Germany), Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (Leipzig, Germany), Norddeutscher Rundfunk (Hamburg, Germany), Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg (Berlin, Germany), Saarländischer Rundfunk (Saarbrücken, Germany), Südwestrundfunk (Mainz, Germany), Westdeutscher Rundfunk Köln (Cologne, Germany), Radio Bremen (Bremen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘tagesschau’ — EU trade mark No 10 237 543

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2019 in Case R 1487/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare EU trade mark No 10 237 543 to be revoked with effect from 15 November 2017, also in respect of the services ‘Provision of news programmes and reports’;

— order the EU trade-mark proprietors to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of essential procedural requirements (obligation to state reasons);

— Infringement of the first sentence of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo and repealing Common Position 2008/369/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 30) and of Article 2b(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2005 L 193, p. 1) are inapplicable. In that regard, the applicant submits that the legal criterion, as defined in those articles, on which the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue is based, infringes the principle of foreseeability of EU acts and the principle of proportionality in so far as it confers arbitrary and discretionary power on the Council.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration and the duty to state reasons. In that respect the applicant claims, inter alia, that he was not treated fairly by the Commission which did not comply with its obligation for due diligence or its duty of care. In the applicant’s submission, the Commission should have obtained information about the outcome of the criminal proceedings which concluded with the proceedings being discontinued and passed that outcome on to the Disciplinary Board in order for the board to take it into account in its decision.
Action brought on 28 February 2020 — NEC Oncoimmunity v EASME

(Case T-132/20)

(2020/C 161/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NEC Oncoimmunity A/S (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: T. Nordby, R. Bråthen and O. Brouwer, lawyers)

Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— in primary order, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU: — annul the contested decision (decision of 16 December 2019 terminating the participation of the applicant in the procedure H2020/EIC/SMEInst-2018-2020-2 in relation to the MEDIVAC(850078) project); — order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs and the costs of any intervening parties.

— in subsidiary order, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU: — declare that the contested decision is in breach of the defendant’s contractual obligations; — order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs and the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law in relation to its heads of claim under Article 263 TFEU and one plea in law in relation to its heads of claim under Article 272 TFEU.

1. First plea in law under Article 263 TFEU, alleging that the defendant has committed an error in law and misapplied the eligibility criteria for the SME Instrument grant laid down in Regulation No 1290/2013. (1)

2. Second plea in law under Article 263 TFEU, alleging that the defendant has committed an error in law as the contested decision is in breach of the principle of equal treatment.

3. Third plea in law under Article 263 TFEU, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

4. Single plea in law under Article 272 TFEU, alleging that the contested decision results, notably because of the identified error in the interpretation of the applicable law and discriminatory practice, also in a misinterpretation and breach of the contractual obligations vis-à-vis the applicant.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 laying down the rules for participation and dissemination in ‘Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)’ and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 81)
—

order the Commission to pay default interest on the amount in (a), i.e., on the compensation that corresponds to the default interest on the part of the fine that was annulled. That default interest should be calculated at the rate corresponding to the applicable ECB refinancing rate plus 3,5 percentage points (calculated on the compensation of EUR 300 637,32, that amounts to EUR 28,83 per day), or, alternatively, at a rate of interest that the Court deems appropriate. This default interest should be calculated over the period starting on the date of the Commission’s reimbursement of the principal amount on 11 December 2019, or alternatively starting on the date of the delivery of the General Court’s judgment in this case, or, as a further alternative, over the period starting on the date that the Court deems appropriate;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 April 2020 — Schneider v EUIPO — Raths (Teslaplatte)

(Case T-183/20)

(2020/C 191/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Christian Schneider (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented by: R. Buttron, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Oliver Raths (Männedorf, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Teslaplatte — EU trade mark No 11 222 155

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2020 in Case R 247/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision to the effect that the appeal by the party concerned dated 28 January 2019 is dismissed in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
5.

Monitoring of the area and environmental education, and Accessible Ecological Network: infringement of essential procedural requirements, failure to observe the principle of proportionality, infringement of Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, infringement of Article 18 of the Common Rules governing financing and breach of legitimate expectations, since the action was performed in full and the delays complained of do not affect the implementation in the long term of dissemination activities. Indeed, it is claimed the action was entirely completed in so far as possible given the environmental constraints;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 April 2020 –Zoom v EUIPO — Facetec (ZOOM)

(Case T-204/20)

(2020/C 201/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zoom KK (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. de Arpe Tejero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Facetec Inc. (Las Vegas, Nevada, 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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ZOOM — International registration designating the European Union No 1 323 959

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2020 in Case R 507/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

Infringement of the Europol Staff Regulations The applicant claims that the preconditions for the contested disciplinary measure under the Europol Staff Regulations have not been met. The defendant has disregarded the applicable provisions of the Staff Regulations and attempts to justify the adopted disciplinary measure (only) months later through a retroactive redeployment order and by reference to a reorganisation.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 April 2020 — Biovene Cosmetics v EUIPO — Eugène Perma France (BIOVÈNE BARCELONA)

(Case T-227/20)

(2020/C 201/68)

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 figurative mark BIOVÈNE BARCELONA in colours pink and white — Application for registration No 16 523 102

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2020 in Case R 1661/2019-4

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
Action brought on 23 April 2020 — Orion v Commission

(Case T-223/20)

(2020/C 209/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Orion Oyj (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer, J. Mulryne and E. Amos, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the defendant dated 13 February 2020 to grant a generic marketing authorisation for ‘Dexmedetomidine Accord’;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision constitutes a violation of Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 10(2)(a) thereof, by accepting the medicinal product ‘Precedex’, which was granted a national marketing authorisation in the Czech Republic prior to accession to the EU as a reference medicinal product, given that this national marketing authorisation was not granted (or updated) in accordance with Union provisions in force.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision constitutes a violation of Article 14(11) of Regulation 726/2004, (2) read in conjunction with Article 10(1) and 6(1) of Directive 2001/83, by concluding that the regulatory data protection for the applicant’s product, ‘Dexdor’, had expired and accepting that it (and the research data underlying it) could be used as a reference medicinal product in support of an application for a marketing authorisation for a copy (generic) product, on the grounds that the medicinal product ‘Precedex’ and ‘Dexdor’ belong to the same global marketing authorisation.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not contain an adequate statement of reasons as required by Article 296 TFEU.

(1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and surveillance of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).
—

consequently, annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, in so far as it concerns the applicant; Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as concerns the applicant; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as concerns the applicant; Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as concerns the applicant;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Oatly v EUIPO (IT'S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS)

(Case T-253/20)

(2020/C 215/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oatly AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark IT’S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS — Application for registration No 18 035 560

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2020 in Case R 2446/2019-5

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 incurred by the applicant at the present proceedings.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 4(1)(b) and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 related to the protection of privacy and of the integrity of the individual.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 May 2020 — Yongkang Kugooo Technology v EUIPO — Ford Motor Company (kugoo)

(Case T-324/20)

(2020/C 247/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Yongkang Kugooo Technology Co. Ltd (Yongkang, China) (represented by: P. Pérot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ford Motor Company (Dearborn, Michigan, United States)

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 kugoo — Application for registration No 17 007 741

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2020 in Case R 65/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and grant the application for registration of the European Union figurative mark kugoo No 17 007 741;

— order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, together with taxes and all the costs incurred by the applicant before the EUIPO and the General Court.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — eins energie in sachsen v Commission

(Case T-318/20)

(2020/C 240/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: eins energie in sachsen GmbH & Co. KG (Chemnitz, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the concentration ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ to be compatible with the internal market, Case M.8871 (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 May 2020 — Arias Mosquera and Others v SRB

(Case T-303/20)

(2020/C 247/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: José María Arias Mosquera (Madrid, Spain) and 28 other applicants (represented by: P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruíz de la Torre Esporrín, A. Menéndez Menéndez and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Decision SRB/EES/2020/52 of the Single Resolution Board of 17 March 2020 determining whether compensation needs to be granted to the shareholders and creditors in respect of Banco Popular Español S.A.

— order the defendant and the parties intervening in full or partial support of the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-302/20, Del Valle Ruiz and Others v Single Resolution Board.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-379/20)

(2020/C 255/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F. Laprévote, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 24 April 2020 on State aid SA.57061 (1); and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

The applicant has also requested that its action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law, which are similar to those raised in case T-378/20, Ryanair v Commission.

(1) European Commission Decision (EU) of 24 April 2020 on State aid SA.57061 -- Sweden — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines (not yet published in the Official Journal)
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Stadtwerke Leipzig v Commission

(Case T-313/20)

(2020/C 247/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stadtwerke Leipzig GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant's decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the merger ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ compatible with the common market (Case M.8871) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on three pleas in law, which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.
—

annul the decision of 1 October 2019 to apply the rules of the Staff Regulations in force since 1 May 2004 to the calculation of her old-age pension;
2.

Second plea in law In the second plea in law, the applicant argues that Article 18 in conjunction with Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union are discriminatory and, therefore, null and void because in respect of an active official one year of marriage is sufficient to be regarded as a stable relationship which on the death of the official entitles his or her spouse to a survivor’s pension, whereas in respect of spouses of officials who marry those officials only after their retirement, five years of marriage must be demonstrated to benefit from a survivor’s pension.
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of the Commission (3) against higher-ranking law The fifth plea alleges that the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2015/63 is contrary to Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and Article 103(7)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92. (h) of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, (5) as well as the requirement of risk-appropriate premium assessment, since the regulation permits an objectively inappropriate and disproportionate differentiation between the members of an institution-related protection scheme and a relativisation of the IPS indicator through the double consideration of the risk indicator for ‘trading activities, off-balance-sheet risks, derivatives, complexity and run-off capacity’ to the detriment of the institutions liable to pay contributions. In addition, the provision infringes the principle of certainty, the requirement to take full account of the facts of the case and, in conjunction with other provisions of the Delegated Ordinance, provides for effective legal protection.