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

Action brought on 13 May 2019 — Think Schuhwerk v EUIPO (Shape of red shoelace aglets)

(Case T-298/19)

(2019/C 220/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for an EU position mark (Shape of red shoelace aglets) — Application for registration No 15 152 606

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2019 in Case R 1170/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of the principle of equal treatment;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 May 2019 — BRF Singapore Foods v EUIPO — Tipiak (SADIA)

(Case T-310/19)

(2019/C 246/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: C. Mateu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tipiak (Saint-Aignan de Grand Lieu, 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 SADIA — Application for registration No 12 084 273

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 in Case R 1857/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order Tipiak to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of general EU principles of the sound administration and equal treatment;

— 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 6 June 2019 — Martínez Albainox v EUIPO — Taser International (TASER)

(Case T-341/19)

(2019/C 255/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Martínez Albainox, SL (Albacete, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Taser International, Inc. (Scottsdale, Arizona, 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 TASER in colours black, yellow and red — European Union trade mark No 12 817 052

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 March 2019 in Case R 1577/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision expressly declaring the validity of the European Union trademark No. 12 817 052‘TASER’ (fig.) for all registered goods in class 8;

— order EUIPO and the intervening party, Taser International, Inc., to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

First plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of the requirement as to the duration of the marriage, fixed at five years by Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that, first, it discriminates arbitrarily between officials in service and retired officials. Secondly, the applicant takes the view that, although the minimum duration requirement of one year is appropriate in combating fraudulent marriages, a minimum duration of five years is itself arbitrary, inadequate and unfair. Thirdly, such a condition can unfairly exclude from the benefit of a survivor’s pension the spouse of a deceased official who is nevertheless bound by plans for their life together.
—

annul the Parliament’s decision, as confirmed by the letter without legal basis of the President of the Parliament of 27 June 2019, refusing to guarantee, pursuant to Rule 3(2) of its Rules of Procedure, the right of the applicants to take their seats in Parliament and on its bodies and to enjoy all the rights attaching thereto from the date of the first sitting and until a ruling has been given on the disputes referred both to Parliament and to the judicial authorities of Spain;
—

consequently: — annul the decision of the Secretary General of the Court of Auditors of 11 April 2019, notified on 15 April 2019, classifying the sum of EUR 153 407,58 as undue payment and ordering the recovery of that sum of EUR 153 407,58 (plus interest at the rate of 3.5% from 31 May 2019); — in so far as necessary, annul the two decisions of 4 June 2019 and 7 June 2019 of the Accounting Officer of the Court of Auditors; — therefore, order the defendant to reimburse the sum of EUR 153 495,84 (EUR 153 407,58 (principal sum) plus EUR 88.26 by way of late payment interest attributable to the applicant) plus late payment interest at the rate of 3.5% until full payment; — order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered; — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 July 2019 — Global Brand Holdings v EUIPO (XOXO)

(Case T-503/19)

(2019/C 288/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Global Brand Holdings LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: D. de Marion de Glatigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark XOXO — Application for registration No 17 086 951

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2019 in Case R 1413/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 July 2019 — BNP Paribas and Others v SRB

(Case T-467/19)

(2019/C 295/103)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: BNP Paribas (Paris, France), BNP Paribas Arbitrage (Paris) and BNP Paribas Securities Services (Paris) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 on the calculation of the 2019 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) in so far as it concerns the applicants;

— pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (‘SRM Regulation’), the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable: — Article 69(2), Article 70(1) and Article 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; — Article 4(2), Article 6, Article 7 and Article 10 of the Delegated Regulation and Annex I thereto; — Article 4 and Article 8(5) of the Implementing Regulation;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-466/19, Société générale and Others v SRB.
Action brought on 24 July 2019 — Arranz de Miguel and Others v ECB and SRB

(Case T-528/19)

(2019/C 305/81)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Ricardo Arranz de Miguel (Madrid, Spain), Alejandro Arranz Padierna de Villapadierna (Madrid), Felipe Arranz Padierna de Villapadierna (Madrid), Ricardo Arranz Padierna de Villapadierna (Madrid), Nicolás Arranz Padierna de Villapadierna (Madrid) (represented by: R. Pelayo Jiménez and A. Muñoz Aranguren, lawyers)

Defendants: European Central Bank and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— Declare that the ECB and the SRB have incurred non-contractual liability as a result of the infringements specified in the application and order them to pay compensation to the applicants for the damage caused, valued at the asset value of their shares, or in the alternative, order the defendant institutions to pay compensation equivalent to EUR 0.8442 per share.

— Increase the amount due with compensatory interest calculated, at a rate equivalent to the annual inflation rate stated by EUROSTAT in relation to Spain, as of 6 June 2017 until the date of delivery of the judgment, plus default interest as of the date of the judgment awarding compensation for the damage suffered until actual payment.

— Order the defendant institutions to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-659/17, Vallina Fonseca v Single Resolution Board (OJ 2017 C 424, p.42).

As regards the European Central Bank, the applicants claim, inter alia, infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and breach of the obligation of due diligence and good administration.
Action brought on 12 July 2019 — Corneli v ECB

(Case T-501/19)

(2019/C 312/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Francesca Corneli (Velletri, Italy) (represented by: F. Ferraro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the ECB Executive Board’s decision of 29 May 2019, ref L/LDG/19/182, refusing access to the ECB’s decision to place Banca Carige S.p.A., having its registered office in Genoa, Italy, under special administration and to the relevant case file, and order the defendant to produce and submit to the Court the abovementioned decision and all prior, preparatory, related and consequent acts; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought for the annulment of the ECB Executive Board’s decision of 29 May 2019, ref L/LDG/19/182, refusing access to the ECB’s decision to place Banca Carige S.p.A., having its registered office in Genoa, Italy, under special administration and to the relevant case file, and for an order that the defendant produce and submit to the Court the abovementioned decision and all prior, preparatory, related and consequent acts.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4 of ECB Decision 2004/3 and misapplication of the exception relating to the confidentiality of information that is protected as such under EU law. — The applicant claims in this respect that the contested decision is unlawful in so far as it lacks actual evidence indicating the confidential parts of the document at issue, their function and their purpose within the ECB and the risks attached to their disclosure. It claims that, in weighing up the various interests, there is no doubt that savers’ specific interest in protecting their shareholding as well as the efficiency and transparency of the governance of the company prevails over the general requirement — in respect of which no reasons are given — to protect supervision procedures.

2. Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons for the confidential nature of the document requested. — The applicant claims in this respect that the ECB fails to offer any reasons for its claim that the contested act is confidential, merely stating, as if it were obvious, that protecting its supervision procedures justifies the refusal of access.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(1) and 8(1) of ECB Decision 2004/3 and failure to state reasons. — The applicant claims in this respect serious infringement of Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Decision 2004/3 and failure to state reasons, since the conditions for a general presumption of confidentiality are not satisfied and in any event the ECB failed to carry out a specific assessment of the documents to which access was requested.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the principle of equivalence in purchasing power between officials, irrespective of their place of posting. In the first place, the applicants submit that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to state any reasons for it, which prevents them from understanding the justification for that decision and does not allow the General Court to exercise its judicial review. In the second place, the applicants take the view that they carry out their duties under the same conditions as their colleagues posted at the European Commission Representation in Paris and that they should therefore receive, like those colleagues, a fixed entertainment allowance. Lastly, they take the view that observance of the principle of equivalence in purchasing power is incompatible with the existence of the same weighting for officials posted in Paris, Strasbourg, Marseille and Valenciennes.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Article 429(14) and of Article 400(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1) and, second, the misuse of powers by the ECB. The applicant considers that, by basing its decision on the existence of a concentration risk on the Caisse des dépôts et consignations (‘the CDC’) to entirely refuse to exclude the Crédit Lyonnais (‘LCL’) exposures to CDC from its leverage ratio, the ECB imposes a prudential requirement on LCL in respect of the concentration on sovereign exposures which Article 400(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 does not allow it to impose and uses its powers under Article 429(14) of the that regulation for purposes other than those provided for in that Article.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 August 2019 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

(Case T-555/19)

(2019/C 328/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

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 GRILLOUMI — Application for registration No 15 963 291

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 May 2019 in Case R 1355/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Art 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 12 August 2019 — Julius Sämann v EUIPO — Maharishi Vedic University (Representation of a tree)

(Case T-559/19)

(2019/C 328/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Julius Sämann Ltd (Thayngen, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Parrish, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maharishi Vedic University Ltd (Mgarr, Malta)

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 in colours white, brown, yellow and shades of blue (Representation of a tree) — Application for registration No 15 666 639

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2019 in Case R 1743/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the applicant’s application;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of this application and the proceedings before the Office.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging threefold deprivation of the right to vote in the European elections due to the Council’s unlawful failure to act. In the context of that plea, the applicants consider in particular that: — the Council infringed the rights of British citizens by not calling into question, at the time of the European elections, the application of the ‘15-year rule’ which seriously infringes the right to move and reside freely, the principle of sound administration and the principle of equality in the exercise of the right to vote recognised by the Charter, and infringement of Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 10 thereof; — the late postponement of Brexit on 11 April 2019 having taken place after the closing of national electoral registers amounts to an infringement of the right to move and reside freely, Article 50 TEU, the principle of sound administration and the principle of equality in the exercise of the right to vote recognised by the Charter, and Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 10 thereof; — the ballot in the United Kingdom is unlawful because of the hastiness of the prorogation of Brexit and the unreasonable formalities required in respect of non-British European citizens living in the United Kingdom.
1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error in the assessment of the facts. The applicant takes the view that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment by justifying the measures taken against him on the ground that he is allegedly ‘a leading businessman operating in Syria’ within the meaning of Article 27.2(a) and Article 28.2(a) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP. The applicant disputes that categorisation of ‘leading businessman’ and the rebuttable presumption of association with the Syrian regime which arises from the contested measures. The applicant maintains that he has not connection with the Syrian regime. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 27.3 and Article 28.3 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, the applicant rebuts the rebuttable presumption laid down in Article 27.2(a) and Article 28.2(a) of that decision by voluntarily demonstrating that he (i) is not, or is no longer, associated with the Syrian regime, (ii) does not exercise any influence on it, and (iii) does not pose any real risk of circumvention of the restrictive measures taken by the Council in view of the situation in Syria. In the applicant’s view, by failing to take into account the rebuttal of that presumption, the Council continues to commit a manifest error of assessment of the facts.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 September 2019 – Point Tec Products Electronic v EUIPO – Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon (Representation of two extended wings)

(Case T-615/19)

(2019/C 363/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Point Tec Products Electronic GmbH (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: D. Wiedemann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA (St-Imier, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark representing two extended wings – International registration designating the European Union No 1 349 160

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2019 in Case R 2427/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
4.

Fourth plea in law, asserting that with regard to the alleged separate product markets for Tinplate (TP), electrolytic chromium coated steel (ECCS) and Laminated Steel, the Commission’s competitive assessment is based on an incorrect interpretation and application of the SIEC test which unlawfully combines incompatible elements of an SIEC resulting from single dominance and from horizontal non-coordinated (oligopolistic) effects. The applicant also claims a manifest error of assessment regarding imports which is based on selectively picked quotes from the market investigation and a few misinterpreted internal documents which lead to the defendant unduly ignoring the relevance of high levels of imports for TP and ECCS and the potential of re-rollers entering the market as they have done in other parts of the world.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 September 2019 — Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo v EUIPO — Embutidos Monells (5Ms MMMMM)

(Case T-639/19)

(2019/C 383/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo, SAU (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J.M. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Embutidos Monells, SA (San Miguel de Balenya, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of European Union figurative mark ‘5Ms MMMMM’ — Application for registration No 16 338 998

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2019 in Case R 1728/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— accordingly, refuse registration of European Union figurative mark No 16 338 998‘5Ms MMMMM’ in Class 29;

— order any party opposing the present action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.