ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 18 December 2018 — Taminco and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain v Commission

(Case T-740/18)

(2019/C 72/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Taminco BVBA (Gent, Belgium) and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain Ltd (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1500 of 9 October 2018 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance Thiram, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing Thiram, (1) and remand the assessment of the active substance in question to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the defendant, as needed;

— order the prolongation of the expiry of the approval of the active substance in question to allow its reassessment;

— in the alternative, partially annul the contested regulation to the extent that it prohibits the renewal of the active substance in question with regard to seed treatment; and

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is procedurally flawed since the defendant failed to take into account the withdrawal of the application requested by the applicants to renew the approval of Thiram for use as a foliar spray and maintain only the seed treatment use.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted further to a manifest error of assessment.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in violation of Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. (2)

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted ultra vires by making a proposal regarding the classification of the active substance in question.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation results from a procedure during which the applicants’ rights of defence have not been respected.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the precautionary principle and of the fundamental principles of European Union law of proportionality and equal treatment.

(1) OJ 2018, L 254, p. 1.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 December 2018 — C&A v EUIPO (#BESTDEAL)

(Case T-753/18)

(2019/C 65/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: C&A AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark #BESTDEAL in white — Application for registration No 17 681 826

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2018 in Case R 1234/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the grounds of the action well-founded and annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs should it appear in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 17 June 2019 — XC v Commission.

(Case T-488/18)

(2019/C 270/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: XC (represented by: C. Bottino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the act excluding the applicant from the open competition EPSO/AD/338/17;

— Annul, pursuant to Article 263(4) TFEU, European Commission decision C(2018) 3969;

— Annul, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the reserve list of open competition EPSO/AD/356/18;

— Order compensation for harm to the extent determined by the Court and order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Concerning the application for annulment, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU of the applicant’s exclusion from open competition EPSO/AD/338/17

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 3 and 7 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, as interpreted in particular by the judgment settling Cases T-361/10 Pachitis v Commission and T-587/16 HM v Commission

2. Second plea in law based on the fact that, according to the applicant, the preparation procedure for the e-tray exercise constitutes an infringement of the obligation of secrecy of the proceedings of the selection board laid down in Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations.

3. Third plea in law, based on the fact that the conduct of the e-tray exercise in accordance with the arrangements provided for by EPSO constituted indirect discrimination against the applicant in terms of access and an infringement of the obligation to provide reasonable adjustment. Concerning the application for annulment, pursuant to Article 263(4) TFEU, of European Commission Decision C(2018) 3969

4. Fourth plea in law based on the infringement of the principles set out in the judgments in Cases T-516/14 Alexandrou v Commission and C-491/15 P Typke v Commission Concerning the application for annulment, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, of the reserve list of open competition EPSO/AD/356/18

5. Fifth plea in law alleging that EPSO was not entitled to fail to submit its request for re-examination to the selection board within the meaning of point 4.2.2 of the General rules governing open competitions or to take its place in decisions and/or statements of reasons.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO — New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX BRENT)

(Case T-760/18)

(2019/C 93/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: R. Hoy, Solicitor, and J. Bowhill, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

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 NYMEX BRENT — Application for registration No 15 333 891

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2018 in Case R 102/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 January 2019 — Cimpress Schweiz v EUIPO — Impress Media (CIMPRESS)

(Case T-37/19)

(2019/C 82/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cimpress Schweiz GmbH (Winterthur, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Eckhartt, P. Böhner and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Impress Media GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the mark at issue: Applicant

Mark at issue: EU word mark CIMPRESS — EU mark No 13 147 624

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 October 2018 in Joined Cases R 1716/2017-2 and R 1786/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— on the applicant’s appeal, annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 13 June 2017 in Case B 2 493 933 and reject the opposition brought by Impress Media GmbH against registration of the mark CIMPRESS No 13 147 624;

— order EUIPO and Impress Media GmbH, should it intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 January 2019 — Repsol v EUIPO (INVENTEMOS EL FUTURO)

(Case T-8/19)

(2019/C 72/54)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Repsol, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and J. C. Erdozain López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘INVENTEMOS EL FUTURO’ — Application for registration No 17 258 807

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2018 in Case R 1173/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 January 2019 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret (apiheal)

(Case T-51/19)

(2019/C 103/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey)

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 EU figurative mark apiheal — Application for registration No 14 411 557

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2018 in Case R 1725/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision in so far as concerns the partial granting of the application for the following goods: ‘perfumery; cosmetics; fragrances; deodorants for personal use and animals; soaps; bath herbs, not for medical purposes; dental care preparations, dentifrices, denture polishes, tooth whitening preparations, mouth washes, not for medical use’ in Class 3 and ‘preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides’ in Class 5.

— Refuse EU trade mark application No 14 411 557 apiheal with regard to the aforementioned ‘perfumery; cosmetics; fragrances; deodorants for personal use and animals; soaps; bath herbs, not for medical purposes; dental care preparations, dentifrices, denture polishes, tooth whitening preparations, mouth washes, not for medical use’ in Class 3 and ‘preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides’ in Class 5.

— Order EUIPO and, if applicable, the intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Globalia Corporación Empresarial v EUIPO — Touring Club Italiano (TC Touring Club)

(Case T-44/19)

(2019/C 93/99)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Globalia Corporación Empresarial, SA (Llucmajor, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Touring Club Italiano (Milan, Italy)

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 TC Touring Club in colours red and light grey — Application for registration No 15 299 001

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2018 in Case R 448/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision due to infringement of Article 95(1) and (2) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, constituting a substantial procedural error; and/or

— set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Article 47(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and enter a finding to the effect that proof of ‘genuine’ use of the earlier trade mark is insufficient or inconclusive; and/or

— set aside the contested decision due to erroneous application of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and enter a finding to the effect that there does not exists likelihood of confusion between the confronted trade marks;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(1) and (2) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 47(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 February 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO — Passi (LA PASSIATA)

(Case T-70/19)

(2019/C 122/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Passi AG (Rothrist, Switzerland)

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 LA PASSIATA — Application for registration No 14 593 131

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2018 in Case R 928/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)

(Case T-60/19)

(2019/C 112/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Filotas Bellas & Yios AE (Alexandreia Imathias, Greece)

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: European Union figurative mark Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese/grill est/grill kase M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927 — European Union trade mark No 12 172 276

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2018 in Case R 2296/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the similarity of the goods;

— The Board of Appeal erred in considering that it was correct to transpose the reasoning from previous General Court case law;

— The Board of Appeal wrongly held that an earlier national mark wholly lacked distinctive character as distinguishing goods which are certified from those which were not;

— The Board of Appeal erred in the comparison of the marks and the assessment of the likelihood of confusion;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (currencyassistant)

(Case T-90/19)

(2019/C 139/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, 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 currencyassistant — Application for registration No 15 224 876

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1057/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

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

Action brought on 18 February 2019 — Rezon v EUIPO (imot.bg)

(Case T-101/19)

(2019/C 131/65)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by M. Yordanova-Harizanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: application for the EU figurative mark imot.bg — application for registration No 17 203 316

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2018 in Case R 999/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and order registration of the mark at issue;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the costs 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 Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

annul the abovementioned decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, in so far as it amends Article 76 of the IMS (recitals 5 and 6, Article 1(7)) and Article 2 in so far as it concerns Article 76 of the IMS of the abovementioned decision), or, alternatively, if those sections were not considered to be severable from the remainder of the contested measure, to annul the abovementioned measure in its entirety;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kerry Luxembourg/EUIPO — Döhler (TasteSense)

(Case T-109/19)

(2019/C 139/90)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Döhler GmbH (Darmstadt, 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 TasteSense –Application for registration No 15 820 525

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 in Case R 1178/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the opposition brought by Döhler GmbH against the registration of the mark TasteSense By Kerry No. 15 820 525;

— order EUIPO and Döhler, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 30 January 2019 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

(Case T-56/19)

(2019/C 139/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

— Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;

— In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert with a view to establishing the scale of the harm suffered by the applicant;

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicant for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.

The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they infringe the applicant’s right to property and its right to respect for its reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicant consisting, respectively, in (i) damage to its reputation and (ii) breach of contract, loss of equipment and loss of revenue, in respect of which it is entitled to compensation.

The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Ramazani Shadary v Council

(Case T-122/19)

(2019/C 139/102)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 13 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 13 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.