ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/22

Action brought on 8 January 2016 — La tarte tropézienne v OHIM (LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE 1955. SAINT-TROPEZ)

(Case T-7/16)

(2016/C 090/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: La tarte tropézienne (Cogolin, France) (represented by: T. Cuche, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘LA TARTE TROPÉZIENNE 1955. SAINT-TROPEZ’ — Application for registration No 1 212 405

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 October 2015 in Case R 720/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Hold and rule that the present action is admissible;

— Find that international registration No 1.212.405 is validly protected in the European Union in respect of the following goods: ‘flour and preparations made from cereals; sugar; honey; treacle; yeast; baking powder; spices; dough for cakes; cakes; frozen cakes; pancakes’;

— In consequence, annul in part the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 October 2016 in so far as it refused protection in the European Union of international registration No 1.212.405 in respect of the following goods: ‘flour and preparations made from cereals; sugar; honey; treacle; yeast; baking powder; spices; dough for cakes; cakes; frozen cakes; pancakes’;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/37

Appeal brought on 13 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-9/14 De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-59/16 P)

(2016/C 111/44)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul points 2 and 3 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 58 to 63 of the judgment itself;

— Consequently, annul the guidelines established for the year 2012 or declare that they are no longer applicable; order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs;

— Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-9/14).

The grounds of appeal and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-55/16 P De Nicola v European Investment Bank.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/45

Action brought on 1 February 2016 — Azanta v OHIM — Novartis (NIMORAL)

(Case T-49/16)

(2016/C 106/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Azanta A/S (Hellerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Hoffgaard Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘NIMORAL’ — Application for registration No 12 204 079

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2015 in Case R 634/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— allow the registration of the contested trademark.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/37

Action brought on 15 February 2016 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)

(Case T-72/16)

(2016/C 118/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: BBY Solutions, Inc. (Minneapolis, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Worldwide Sales Corporation España, SL (Sant Vicenç dels Horts, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BEST BUY mobile’ — Application for registration No 7 213 424

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2015 in Case R 53/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition division dated 6 November 2014 in Opposition No. B 1485137;

— accept for registration the CTM Application No 007213424;

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

Pleas in law

— The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the dominant and distinctive elements of the marks;

— The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the overall impression created by the marks;

— The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the identity of the services covered by the marks; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/32

Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Enercon v EUIPO — Gamesa Eólica (Shades of green)

(Case T-36/16)

(2016/C 111/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: S. Overhage, Lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gamesa Eólica, SL (Sarriguren, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU colour mark consisting of different shades of green. EU trade mark No 2 346 542.

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2015 in Case R 597/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFUE because the Commission failed to properly apply the market economy operator test. The Commission erroneously refused to rely on a comparator analysis, which would have led to the finding of absence of aid to the applicants. In the alternative, the Commission failed to attribute appropriate value to marketing services, wrongly dismissed the rationale behind the airport’s decision to purchase such services, erroneously dismissed the possibility that part of the marketing services may have been purchased for general interest purposes, erroneously considered the airport manager, le Syndicat Mixte pour l’aménagement et le dévelopment de l’aéroport de Nîmes — Alès — Camargue — Cévennes (SMAN), and its privately held contractor VTAN as a single entity, based its conclusions on incomplete and inappropriate data for its calculation of the airport’s profitability, disregarded the network externalities that the airport could expect to gain from its relationship with Ryanair, and neglected to compare the data submitted by the airport to those typically related to a well-run airport. In any event, even if there was an advantage to the applicants, the Commission failed to establish that the advantage was selective.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/43

Action brought on 26 February 2016 — Rheinmetall Waffe Munition v EUIPO (VANGUARD)

(Case T-93/16)

(2016/C 136/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rheinmetall Waffe Munition GmbH (Südheide, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, 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 the mark ‘VANGUARD’ — Application for registration No 11 166 003

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 in Case R 69/2015-2

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 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

declare that the Commission has breached its contractual obligations and order it to pay the applicant a total amount of EUR 1 634 990,62 (corresponding to (i) EUR 943 046,54 due to declaring the costs of CTT as in-house consultants, together with their corresponding indirect costs; (ii) EUR 96 358,10 as unlawfully claimed liquidated damages; and (iii) EUR 595 585,98 as contractual damage) to be increased by interests under Article II.28.7 of the Contract at the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Communities, in force on the first calendar day of the month in which the due date falls, plus three and a half percentage points until full and entire payment;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/51

Action brought on 22 February 2016 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate

(Measuring instruments, apparatus and devices)

(Case T-90/16)

(2016/C 156/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Murphy (Blackrock, Ireland) (represented by: N. Travers, SC, J. Gormley, Barrister, M. O’Connor, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nike Innovate CV (Beaverton, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design ‘measuring instruments, apparatus and devices’ — Community design No 2 159 640-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 in Case R 736/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal failed to give the Applicant a fair and adequate hearing;

— The Board of Appeal failed to identify the actual degree of design freedom and the degree of design constraint, and, in so doing, failed properly to reason, or reason adequately, the contested decision;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/21

Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Prada v EUIPO — The Rich Prada International (THE RICH PRADA)

(Case T-111/16)

(2016/C 175/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Prada SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Jacobacci, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Rich Prada International PT (Surabaya, Indonesia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘THE RICH PRADA’ — Application for registration No 10 228 948

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 January 2016 in Joined Cases R 3076/2014-2 and R 3186/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in part, thereby granting Opposition Proceedings No B 2 012 477 in its entirety;

— in the alternative, uphold the decision of the Second Board of Appeal in its entirety;

— reverse the order to Prada SA to bear the costs of the appeal to the Board of Appeal, in the amount of €550, and order The Rich Prada International PT to pay such costs;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the procedure.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/33

Action brought on 31 March 2016 — SDSR v EUIPO — Berghaus (BERG OUTDOOR)

(Case T-139/16)

(2016/C 175/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sports Division SR, SA (SDSR) (Matosinhos, Portugal) (represented by: A. Sebastião and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Berghaus Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BERG OUTDOOR’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 116 936

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 in Case R 153/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to grant the registration of International trademark no. 1116936 designating the EU in its entirety;

— order the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of relative stability. In that regard, it is submitted that, since the same percentages for the allocation of fishing opportunities apply, account is not being taken of those regions of the Member States which joined the EEC after 1981, where local populations are (and were at that time) highly dependent on fisheries. As a consequence, the objective of relative stability itself is not being achieved. Furthermore, even assuming that that allocation key is fixed, it is submitted that those percentages have changed over the years, and as such the relative stability criterion has not been satisfied.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of evidence and of the principle of objectivity, in that the CST held that, in paragraph 28 of the contested order, the appellant had not given any indication regarding the date on which the administration had, or could have, become aware of the future departure on maternity and parental leave of her colleague and, in paragraph 29 of that order, that it was not inconceivable that this could have been the case on 7 April 2014, taking into account the duration of leave of that kind as set out in the Staff Regulations, the predictability long in advance of the date of birth and the custom of informing the department of a long-term absence as soon as possible, inferring from it in paragraph 30 to 32 of the order that the appellant had not demonstrated that she herself nor the administration were not, or could not have been, aware of the future absence of her colleague on 7 April 2014, that her request for re-examination was not substantiated by any new and substantial fact and her claims were inadmissible; whereas evidence of a negative fact and on the part of a third party was impossible to adduce, it was for the EESC to state the date of the request for leave, and the CST could not act on the basis of successive presumptions, nor on a mere assumption in order to reverse the burden of proof and substantiate its findings.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 April 2016 — Kofola ČeskoSlovensko v EUIPO — Mionetto (UGO)

(Case T-176/16)

(2016/C 222/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kofola ČeskoSlovensko (Ostrava, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mionetto SpA (Valdobbiadene, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘UGO’ — Application for registration No 11 541 851

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2016 in Case R 2707/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

(Case T-175/16)

(2016/C 211/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wessel-Werk GmbH (Reichshof, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wolf PVG GmbH & Co. KG (Vlotho, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: The applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 725932-0008 (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 in Case R 1725/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/32

Action brought on 9 March 2016 — Aldi v EUIPO (VISAGE)

(Case T-219/16)

(2016/C 232/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘VISAGE’ — Application for registration No 13 502 364

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2016 in Case R 507/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

By the second plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission has infringed and misapplied Article 107(1) TFEU, as it has found, incorrectly, that there has been use of State resources by the Italian Interbank Deposit Protection Fund (‘the Fund’ or ‘the IDPF’). According to the applicant, this constitutes a manifest error of assessment by the Commission, as the IDPF’s resources cannot be regarded, in the light of the criteria established by the case-law of the Courts of the European Union, as being under public control or available to the Italian State. The Italian legislature has left it entirely to the guarantee schemes’ discretion to determine both the aim and scope of any measures used as alternatives to reimbursing depositors and the concrete ways in which those measures are to be implemented. The alternative measures referred to in Article 29 of the Fund’s Articles of Association may be activated by the Fund if it is foreseeable that the costs thereof will be lower than those arising from intervention in the event of liquidation; they would chiefly serve the associated banks’ private interests and cannot be attributed to the exercise of a public mandate.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/46

Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Meissen Keramik v EUIPO — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen (Meissen)

(Case T-234/16)

(2016/C 243/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Meissen Keramik GmbH (Meißen, Germany) (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and M. Bagh, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH (Meißen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Meissen’ — EU trade mark No 3 743 663

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2016 in Cases R 2620/2014-4 and R 2622/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it finds against the applicant, that is to say in so far as the appeal lodged by the applicant for a declaration of revocation and applicant in the present proceedings was dismissed and in so far as, in addition, owing to the appeal filed by the proprietor of the trade mark, the contested decision of the Cancellation Division was annulled and the application for cancellation was also rejected in that respect;

— in so far as the Court regards itself as authorised to make an alteration: declare EU trade mark No 3 743 663 to be revoked in its entirety — in the alternative or incidentally: refer the case back to EUIPO;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/38

Action brought on 29 April 2016 — Ranocchia v ERCEA

(Case T-208/16)

(2016/C 243/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Graziano Ranocchia (Rome, Italy) (represented by: C. Intino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (Brussels, Belgium)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the ERCEA Redress Committee of 26 February 2016 (Ref: Ares(2016)1020667 — 29/02/2016), issued following the formal redress request submitted on 22 December 2016 vis-à-vis the Evaluation Letter of Dr José Labastida of 17 December 2015 (Ref: Ares(2015)5922529);

— annul the Evaluation Letter of Dr José Labastida of 17 December 2015 (Ref: Ares(2015)5922529) and all documents connected with those mentioned above, including the list of projects approved by the ERC-Cog-2015 SH5-Cultures and Cultural Production panel, which was made public by the ERCEA by press release of 12 February 2016;

— annul any prior, subsequent or connected measures.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant alleges a misuse of powers, on the grounds that the evaluation is manifestly unreasonable, that there has been a distortion of the facts on which the decision not to approve the proposal is based, and that the ERCEA’s rules on evaluating proposals have been infringed.

The applicant submits that the selection procedures concerned have been vitiated with regard to both the objective and subjective scope of evaluation.

As regards the first point, the applicant argues that there is a total lack of consistency between the (extremely positive) evaluations of the individual committee members and the final overall evaluation (rejection of the proposal), and that there has been an incorrect application of the evaluation criteria.

As regards the second point, the applicant focuses on what he considers to be a false representation of the acts and facts which led to the decision not to approve the proposal. He draws particular attention to the incorrect interpretation of the criterion of ‘excellence’ for the purposes of the evaluation.