ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/20

Action brought on 22 October 2015 — PAN Europe e.a. v Commission

(Case T-600/15)

(2016/C 059/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium), Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination (Bee Life) (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium), Unione nazionale associazioni apicoltori italiani (Unaapi) (Castel San Pietro Terme, Italy) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer, A. van den Biesen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/1295 (1); and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted in breach of Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (2) and Annex I and Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 when adopting the contested regulation and approving the putting on the market of sulfoxaflor. — The Commission acted in breach of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and/or did not apply correctly the requirements regarding the approval of active substances as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009; — The Commission also acted in breach of Article 4 in combination with Article 6(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and of point 1.1 and 2.2 of Annex II to the Regulation and/or did not apply correctly the requirements regarding the approval of active substances as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009; and — The Commission acted in breach of Article 4 and Article 6(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and/or did not apply correctly the requirements regarding the approval of active substances as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation breaches beekeepers’ right to property and their right to conduct a business as laid down in the Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3).

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted in breach of the principle of good administration, consistency of decision-making and the duty of care, with the adoption of the contested regulation.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/1295 of 27 July 2015 approving the active substance sulfoxaflor, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ L 199, p. 8).

(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 L 309, p. 1).

(3) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000, C 326, p. 1).
—

annulment of Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the European Commission decision of 31 July 2014 on non-notified State aid SA.34791 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Belgium — Rescue aid for Val Saint-Lambert SA in that it orders the recovery of an amount of aid corresponding to double the economic advantage which actually benefitted the company Val Saint-Lambert;
Third plea in law, relied on in the alternative, alleging infringement of Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, in that the Commission required recovery of the aid in disregard of the principle of legal certainty and of the rights of the defence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/27

Action brought on 28 December 2015 — Labeyrie v OHIM — Delpeyrat (Representation of a sowing of golden fish on a blue background)

(Case T-766/15)

(2016/C 078/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Labeyrie (Saint-Geours-de-Maremne, France) (represented by: A. Lecomte, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delpeyrat (Saint Pierre du Mont, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in colour (Representation of a sowing of golden fish on a blue background) — Community trade mark No 3 916 509

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for revocation

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 October 2015 in Case R 2693/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in that it confirmed the decision of the Invalidity Division of OHIM revoking the rights of the company LABEYRIE over its Community mark No 3 916 509 to designate fish, smoked fish and smoked salmon;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/39

Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Contact Software v Commission

(Case T-751/15)

(2016/C 068/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Contact Software GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: J.-M. Schultze, S. Pautke and C. Ehlenz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Decision C(2015) 7006 final in Case AT.39846 — CONTACT/Dassault & PTC of 9 October 2015;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant requests the annulment of Decision C(2015) 7006 final in Case AT.39846 — CONTACT/Dassault & PTC of 9 October 2015 with which the applicant’s complaint of 18 November 2010 was rejected on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004. (1)

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

1. First plea in law: erroneous definition of the relevant markets The applicant submits that the defendant erred in law and made manifest errors of assessment in the interpretation and application of Article 102 TFEU by not investigating the applicant’s references and arguments relating to a narrower definition of the relevant markets, which suggest that there are, first, separate markets for supplier-specific ‘Computer Aided Design’ (‘CAD’) software or at least for high end CAD software for car manufacturers and car suppliers and, secondly, a market for interface information about the CAD software of every supplier.

2. Second plea in law: infringement of Article 102 TFEU With this plea, the applicant submits that the defendant made a manifest error in its assessment of the dominant market position of the undertakings concerned, which error is above all based on the erroneous market definition which has already been referred to.

3. Third plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons In the context of the third plea, the applicant submits that the rejection of its complaint was not sufficiently reasoned.

4. Fourth plea in law: incorrect exercise of discretion With the fourth plea the applicant submits that the defendant’s conclusion that, having regard to the Community interest, there were no sufficient reasons to further investigate a possible infringement of Article 102 TFEU is manifestly incorrect.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/48

Action brought on 31 December 2015 — Sony Optiarc and Sony Optiarc America v Commission

(Case T-763/15)

(2016/C 098/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sony Optiarc, Inc (Atsugi, Japan), and Sony Optiarc America, Inc (San Jose, United States) (represented by: N. Levy and E. Kelly, Solicitors, and R. Snelders, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 21 October 2015 in Case AT.39639 — Optical Disk Drives, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement, in so far as it relates to the applicants;

— alternatively, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the fines imposed on the applicants pursuant to that decision; and

— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in fact and in law in finding that the applicants engaged in an infringement of Article 101 TFEU by object. — The evidence cited against the applicants is insufficient to support the finding that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU by object. — The decision’s alternative finding according to which the applicants engaged in separate infringements of Article 101 TFEU by object is unproven and infringed the applicants’ rights of defence because it is made for the first time in the decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/31

Action brought on 23 December 2015 — BBY Solutions v OHIM — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY)

(Case T-773/15)

(2016/C 078/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

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

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

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 OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BEST BUY’ — Application for registration No 6 065 403

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2015 in Joined Cases R 733/2015-2 and R 780/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 8 October 2015 in Case R-0780/2015-2 to the extent that it upheld the opposition;

— annul the decision of the Opposition division dated 23 February 2015 in Opposition No. B 1312208 to the extent that it upheld the opposition;

— accept the CTM Application No 006065403 for registration;

— order the Defendant to bear its own costs and pay 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 or similarity of the goods and services covered by the marks; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/54

Action brought on 15 January 2016 — Slovenia v Commission

(Case T-12/16)

(2016/C 098/69)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: L. Bembič, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 7716) (OJ 2015 L 303, p. 35), in so far as it concerns the Republic of Slovenia, and particularly in so far as it relates to the lack of a control procedure (or surveillance procedure) regarding land parcels created artificially, in relation to which a correction of the decoupled direct aids at issue was made amounting to EUR 42 615,90for the 2013 accounting year (claim year 2012), EUR 45 519,08for the 2014 accounting year (claim year 2013), and EUR 34 211,94for the 2015 accounting year (claim year 2014);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law regarding the checks on the land parcels, namely: a manifest error of assessment; an inadequate statement of reasons for the decision; and infringement of the principle of legality.

In the applicant’s opinion, the Commission incorrectly held that there is not yet an adequate system in Slovenia for checking the smallest eligible areas. In that regard, the applicant observes that the small land parcels in Slovenia are a consequence of the natural features and historical fragmentation of its agricultural structures. Furthermore, those areas were not created artificially in order to meet the requirements for obtaining aid from the support scheme. Lastly, during its examination, the Commission did not establish or prove any breach, since the areas in question meet all the requirements necessary to be defined as agricultural areas and land parcels.
Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 15(3) TFEU in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

The applicant also submits that the refusal of full access to the documents which the defendant issued concerning the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) set up by the Council in addition infringes its right of scrutiny over those documents, which is guaranteed by the aforementioned provisions.
1.

Unfounded refusal, by omission and failure to take a decision, of the request made to the European Central Bank to take action on the basis of a complaint submitted by the applicants on 27 November 2015, related to certain unlawful and unfounded acts carried out by the Banco de Portugal.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/39

Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Caffè Nero Group v OHIM (CAFFÈ NERO)

(Case T-29/16)

(2016/C 106/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Caffè Nero Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Cassidy, Solicitor)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘CAFFÈ NERO’ — Application for registration No 13 238 019

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 November 2015 in Case R 410/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— allow Community trade mark application No. 13238019 to proceed to registration;

— waive the objections to the CTM Application under Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) and Article 7(2);

— allows the CTM Application to proceed to acceptance and advertisement for all covered goods and services;

— order OHIM to pay the Applicant’s costs in this matter.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/35

Action brought on 8 February 2016 — Chanel v EUIPO — Li Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999 (Representation of an ornament)

(Case T-57/16)

(2016/C 118/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Chanel SAS (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Li Jing Zhou (Fuenlabrada, Spain) and Golden Rose 999 Srl (Rome, Italy)

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 representation of an ornament — Community Design No 1 689 027-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2015 in Case R 2346/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the contested design invalid;

— order EUIPO, and any other parties or interveners liable to appear in the present proceedings in support of the contested decision, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/29

Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)

(Case T-23/16)

(2016/C 111/34)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Ilona Biernacka-Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Formata Bogusław Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland)

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 containing the word element ‘Formata’ — Community trade mark No 11 529 427

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 in Case R 102/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action to be well founded;

— annul the contested decision insofar as it dismisses the application for cancellation of Trade Mark No 011529427 ‘Formata’;

— amend the contested decision by cancelling Trade Mark No 011529427 ‘Formata’;

— amend the contested decision with regard to the costs;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/33

Action brought on 29 February 2016 — Kasztantowicz v EUIPO — Gbb Group (GEOTEK)

(Case T-97/16)

(2016/C 145/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Martin Kasztantowicz (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Ronneburger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gbb Group Ltd (Letchworth, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GEOTEK’ — Application for registration No 5 772 975

Proceedings before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2015 in Case R 3025/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 26 September 2014 (Cancellation Decision No 9014 C);

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Rules 57 and 65 of Regulation No 2868/95;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, applied in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as, in deciding to apply a flat-rate correction of 5 %, the Commission: — failed to take into account the fact that the specific and precise damage caused to the European Union was established by reason of the first and fourth infringements found by the Commission; therefore, in regard to those infringements, the Commission ought to have established only a one-off financial correction and ought no longer to have taken account of those infringements in conjunction with other infringements when seeking to establish whether there was a significant risk of financial loss to the Fund; — unjustifiably broke down directly related infringements and thereby artificially created an allegedly significant risk of loss to the Fund; — incorrectly determined and incorrectly took into account, whilst assessing the other infringements found by it, the extent of the discrepancy, the nature of the infringements and the financial damage caused to the European Union; — improperly applied an excessive 5 % financial correction for 2011 because, taking into account the nature of the infringements found by the Commission and other circumstances, the resultant risk of loss to the Fund was not significant; — improperly applied a 5 % financial correction for 2012 because application thereof is provided for only in cases where there is a significant resultant risk of loss to the Fund, even though the checks carried out by the Republic of Lithuania and the information provided established that the number, extent and nature of the discrepancies established for 2012 and the resultant risk to the Fund are significantly lower in comparison with the discrepancies established in 2011; consequently, only a small financial risk to the Fund could have arisen.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/16

Action brought on 16 March 2016 — Puma v EUIPO (FOREVER FASTER)

(Case T-104/16)

(2016/C 165/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke, 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 word mark ‘FOREVER FASTER’ — Application for registration No 1 217 411

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2016 in Case R 770/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and order the defendant to allow the registration of the term ‘FOREVER FASTER’ for the contested goods;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/51

Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO (two curved stripes on the sidewall of a tyre)

(Case T-81/16)

(2016/C 156/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller, F. Togo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU position mark consisting in two curved stripes positioned on the sidewall of a tyre — Application for registration No 13 388 293

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2015 in Case R 1019/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of several formal and procedural principles when assessing the absolute grounds;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

annul the European Central Bank decision of 29 January 2016 (ECB/SSM/2016 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/99) adopted under Article 4(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank and under Articles L. 511-13, L. 511-52, L. 511-58, L. 612-23-1 and R. 612-29-3 of the French monetary and financial code (code monétaire et financier français).