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

Action brought on 27 April 2022 — Casablanca Clothing v EUIPO — Adrien (CASABLANCA TENNIS CLUB)

(Case T-228/22)

(2022/C 237/88)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Casablanca Clothing Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Cléry and C. Devernay, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Adrien SARL (Marseille, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark CASABLANCA TENNIS CLUB — International registration designating the European Union No 1 471 645

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2022 in Case R 1186/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— register the European part of the international mark CASABLANCA TENNIS CLUB No 1 471 645;

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

Plea in law

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

accordingly, annul the list of officials eligible for promotion in the 2021 promotion exercise, in so far as that list does not include the names of Mr Freixas Montpelt at grade AST5, Mr Lopez Cutillas at grade AD6, Ms Schirru at grade SC2 and Mr Andreev Svetlozar at grade AD10;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 May 2022 — ‘ANITA’ Grzegorz Mordalski v EUIPO — Anita Food (ANITA)

(Case T-254/22)

(2022/C 244/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant:‘ANITA’ Grzegorz Mordalski (Działoszyn, Poland) (represented by: A. Korbela, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anita Food, SA (Lima, Peru)

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 ‘ANITA’ — EU trade mark No 8 291 056

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2022 in Case R 1616/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2022, delivered in Case R 1616/2021-4;

— annul the decision (preceding the aforementioned decision) of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 26 July 2021, delivered in Case No 000 047 106 C; and

— remit to EUIPO the application of 1 November 2020 seeking a declaration that the EU trade mark ANITA 008 291 056, registered in the name of Anita Food SA, Carretera Central No 869, Santa Anita, Lima 43, PERU, filed on 11 May 2009 and protected until 11 May 2019, is invalid.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of the listing criteria set forth in Article 1 (1) and 2(1) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, and of Article 3 (1) of the Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 May 2022 — PSCC 2012 v EUIPO — Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide (LA BOTTEGA W)

(Case T-265/22)

(2022/C 257/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: PSCC 2012 Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Alessandrini and E. Montelione, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide LLC (Bethesda, Maryland, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark LA BOTTEGA W — EU trade mark No 11 592 581

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2022 in Case R 621/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul and vary the contested decision and reject the application for cancellation of the mark LA BOTTEGA W;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 60 and 8 of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

— Infringement of Article 42 of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 May 2022 — Domaine Boyar International v EUIPO — Consorzio DOC Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia (BOLGARÉ)

(Case T-300/22)

(2022/C 276/20)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Domaine Boyar International (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: F. Bojinova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consorzio DOC Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia (Castagneto Carducci, 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 BOLGARÉ — Application for registration No 16 670 937

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2022 in Case R 2564/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order EUIPO and interested party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to the present action of annulment.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 46(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 May 2022 — Scania CV v EUIPO (V8)

(Case T-320/22)

(2022/C 284/69)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Scania CV AB (Södertälje, Sweden) (represented by: C. Langenius, P. Sundin and S. Falkner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark V8 — Application No 18 120 085

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2022 in Case R 1868/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision pursuant to Article 72 of the EU Trade Mark Regulation and, by amending EUIPO’s decision, approve Scania’s application for registration of the figurative mark for all the goods and services for which EUIPO rejected the application;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

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;
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right of defence and right to a fair trial in that the applicant was never able to secure a hearing prior to the imposing of the disputed restrictive measures, and in that it was unable to exercise correctly his right of defence, including its right to a fair trial, notably guaranteed by virtue of article 6 § 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights and article 48 § 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If such prior hearing had taken place in a timely fashion, the applicant would have been able to inform the Council of its communication of 13 November 2021 to the EU Commission and of the shutdown of its activities in Minsk.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that Article 2(1)(g) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (3), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (4), and Article 3(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March, 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (5), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (6), are illegal and breach the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and equal treatment.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Banque postale v SRB

(Case T-394/22)

(2022/C 311/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: La Banque postale (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2022/18 of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of 2022 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, (1) the Implementing Regulation (2) and the Delegated Regulation (3) inapplicable: — Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; — Articles 4(2), 5,6, 7 and 20 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; — Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-391/22, Société générale and Others v SRB.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 1).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation No 806/2014 with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(3) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59 with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 June 2022 — Timchenko v Council

(Case T-361/22)

(2022/C 303/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Elena Petrovna Timchenko (Cologny, Switzerland) (represented by: T. Bontinck, S. Bonifassi and E. Fedorova, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582/CFSP (1) of 8 April 2022, in so far as it includes the applicant’s name at No 903 of the annex to that decision;

— annul the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 (2) of 8 April 2022, in so far as it includes the applicant’s name at No 903 of the annex to that decision;

— order the Council to pay provisional damages of EUR 1 000 000 for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant;

— 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.

1. First plea, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and of the obligation of the administration to give reasons.

2. Second plea, alleging manifest error of assessment as regards the grounds given by the Council.

3. Third plea, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, infringement of fundamental rights as regards the adoption of restrictive measures against the applicant, and unjustified interference with her fundamental rights, which are guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

4. Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the Treaties.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 55).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 3).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 July 2022 — Corver v EUIPO (CHR ME)

(Case T-446/22)

(2022/C 326/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Serge-Paul Corver (Lanaken, Belgium) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark CHR ME — Application No 18 016 792

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 March 2022 in Case R 2082/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the appeal;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 20 July 2022 — Millennium BCP Participações and BCP África v Commission

(Case T-462/22)

(2022/C 340/76)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicants: Millennium BCP Participações, SGPS, SU, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) and BCP África (Funchal) (represented by: B. Santiago, L. do Nascimento Ferreira, P. Gouveia e Melo, D. Oda and A. Queiroz Martins, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— order the European Commission to put before the Court the letter of 28 June 2006, in which the Portuguese authorities notified the Commission of draft measure ‘Regime III’, in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU, including any and all documents appended to that letter, for the purposes of Article 88(1) and (2) and Article 89(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;

— annul Article 1 and Article 4(1) of Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III, in so far as those articles apply to the SGPS [Sociedades Gestoras de Participações Sociais (holding companies; ‘SGPS’)] — such as the applicants — referred to in Article 36(8) of the Estatuto dos Beneficios Fiscais (Statute governing Tax Benefits);

— Order the defendant institution to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings, and pay those incurred by the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in the breach of the obligation to state reasons, enshrined in Article 296 TFEU.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in the infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU, in that Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III includes SGPS amongst the beneficiaries concerned by the recovery obligation in the event of a failure to satisfy the job creation requirement;

Third plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in the infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 July 2022 — Vanhove v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (bistro Régent)

(Case T-437/22)

(2022/C 326/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Vanhove (Bordeaux, France) (represented by: N. Castagnon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG (Essen, 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 bistro Régent — Application for registration No 18 136 358

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2022 in Case R 1113/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant the European Union trade mark registration in respect of the designated ‘wines’ in Class 33;

— order EUIPO and, in case of an intervention, also the intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 August 2022 — Kaufdas.online v EUIPO — Kaufland (KAUFDAS ONLINE)

(Case T-488/22)

(2022/C 359/117)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Kaufdas.online sp. z o.o. (Gubin, Poland) (represented by: P. Kurcman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kaufland Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark KAUFDAS ONLINE — Application No 18 113 140

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2022 in Case R 1972/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 28 September 2021 in the opposition proceedings No B 3 106 146 in relation to all of the goods and services in respect of which the opposition was upheld;

— refer the case back to EUIPO so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register EU trade mark No 18 113 140 for all of the goods and services concerned, without prejudice to those that are uncontested;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.

Plea in law
—

find and declare that the European Central Bank (ECB), represented by the President Christine Lagarde is non-contractually liable: (a) for having caused a collapse in the value of the securities owned by Vincenzo D’Agostino titled SI FTSE.COPERP amounting to a loss equal to the entire value of the capital invested, namely EUR 450 596,28, in so far as, on 12 March 2020, Christine Lagarde, in her capacity as President of the ECB, used the infamous phrase ‘We are not here to close spreads, this is not the function or the mission of the ECB’ and thereby caused a significant reduction in the value of securities on stock exchanges around the world and a reduction of 16,92 % on the Milan Stock Exchange, namely in a percentage never before seen in the history of that institution, or on other stock exchanges around the world; the phrase was used in a press conference broadcast globally, and confirmed that the ECB would no longer guarantee the value of securities issued by countries in difficulty and, therefore, signalled a massive change in the direction of the monetary policy that had been adopted by the ECB under the presidency of Mario Draghi, whose mandate finished in November 2019; (b) for having caused a reduction in the value of the applicant’s assets through that conduct and as a result of the huge drop in the index of the Milan Stock Exchange; (c) for having required him, as a result of the substantial and significant reduction in the value of the applicant’s assets, in order to offset that reduction in his assets, and as guarantor for the company Dafin Srl in respect of the credit line available to that company by Banca Fideuram SpA, to extinguish the part of that credit line that had been used, which meant that it was provisionally necessary for him to sell other securities he owned within a ridiculous timescale and thereby suffer a loss of EUR 2 534 422,16 in 2020 and subsequently of EUR 336 517,30 between January 2021 and 15 April 2021 and, therefore, a total loss of EUR 2 870 939,30; (d) for causing material damage in the form of loss of profit in the amount of EUR 1 013 074,00; (e) for having consequently caused a total amount of material damage in the amount of EUR 4 334 609,28;
Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-457/22)

(2022/C 359/106)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic:

— the order for payment of all sums due to the EU under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the of the Syrian Healthcare Loan Agreement (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 9 August 2017 further to its right of subrogation comprising: — EUR 50 880 189,61 and USD 2 897 002,31, the amount due to the EU as at 30 June 2022, which is principal of EUR 40 744 064,86 and USD 2 223 971,84, interest of EUR 5 161 649,64 and USD 341 462,46 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 4 974 475,11 and USD 331 568,01. — further contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the higher (for any successive period of one month) of (i) a rate equal to the EURIBOR rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) (except for any disbursements in USD, a rate equal to the LIBOR rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) applies) or (ii) the fixed rate payable under Article 3.01 plus 0.25 % (25 basis points), until payment is made.

— the order for payment of all sums due to the Bank under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement since 9 August 2017 comprising EUR 11 416,23 and USD 760,94, the amounts due to the Bank as at 30 June 2022, which is contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 29 June 2022 (which is the date that the EU paid the related instalments of principal and interest under the 2000 Guarantee)).

— the order for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic has breached its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, since 9 August 2017 and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to the EU (subrogated to the Bank’s claims) and the amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to the Bank as contractual default interest.