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

Action brought on 18 April 2022 — Ioulia and Irene Tseti Pharmaceutical Laboratories v EUIPO — Arbora & Ausonia (InterMed Pharmaceutical Laboratories eva intima)

(Case T-198/22)

(2022/C 222/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ioulia and Irene Tseti Pharmaceutical Laboratories SA (Athens, Greece) (represented by: C. Chrysanthis, P. Chardalia and A. Vasilogamvrou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arbora & Ausonia, SLU (Madrid, Spain)

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 InterMed Pharmaceutical Laboratories eva intima — Application for registration No 18 127 266

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2022 in Case R 1245/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision so long as it is appealed on its part;

— order EUIPO and Arbora & Ausonia SLU, if it becomes intervener, to pay the costs of the applicant.

Plea in law
Action brought on 30 March 2022 — T-Systems International v Commission

(Case T-173/22)

(2022/C 237/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: T-Systems International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, D. Bogaert and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision to award the contract within the Tender Procedure DIGIT/A3/PR/2019/010 for the provision of services in relation with Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations (TESTA), of which the results were notified on 21 January 2022;

— order the European Commission to bear all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 168(6) of the Financial Regulation (1) and the illegality of all offers submitted within the procedure as the requirements set out in the Tender Specifications make excessively difficult or impossible the implementation of the service, and therefore the submission of a regular offer.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant modified the mandatory requirements set out in the Technical Specifications in violation of the essential conditions of the procedure when assessing the bids of other tenderers.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that a high risk of substantial modification of the contract exists, as the Commission awarded the contract on technical terms which it could not have been unaware would be rapidly obsolete, if not already obsolete at the time of its tender, in violation of Article 170 of the Financial Regulation.

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 April 2022 — Wallmax v EUIPO — Roxtec (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles)

(Case T-219/22)

(2022/C 237/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Wallmax Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Ferrari, L. Goglia and G. Rapaccini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Roxtec AB (Karlskrona, Sweden)

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 (Representation of a blue square containing eight concentric black circles) — European Union trade mark No 7 376 023

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2022 in Case R 1093/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision, in the part in which the Second Board of Appeal holds that the contested trademark is not invalid pursuant to Article 7(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the following goods: Class 6 — Cable and pipe penetration seals, made from metal; sealing frames made from metal; Class 17 — Sealing frames, made from plastic or rubber; Class 19 — Non-metallic rigid pipes for building; non-metallic sealing frames;

— partially annul the contested decision, in the part in which the Second Board of Appeal annulled the Cancellation Division’s decision in relation to the decision on costs;

— as a consequence of the above, uphold EUIPO’s Cancellation Division decision rendered on 23 April 2021;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU have been breached, in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified, unnecessary and disproportionate restriction on those rights, because: (i) there is no suggestion that any funds allegedly misappropriated by the applicant are considered to have been transferred outside Ukraine; (ii) Ukrainian domestic measures would plainly be adequate and sufficient; and (iii) restrictive measures have now been in place for eight years and have, once again, been imposed on the basis of pre-trial investigations which are, in obvious reality, deceased and/or at the very least in total stagnation and, in respect of one of them, on which the Council has not sought to rely in either of the two preceding years.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 May 2022 — Timchenko v Council

(Case T-252/22)

(2022/C 244/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme, L. Burguin, 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) 2022/337/CFSP (1) of 28 February 2022 in so far as it lists the applicant under No 694 of the annex to that decision;

— annul Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 (2) of 28 February 2022 in so far as it lists the applicant under No 694 of the annex to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay EUR 1 000 000, on a provisional basis, in respect of the non-material damage 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 five pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and of the obligation to state reasons.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of fundamental rights.

3. Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, in particular as regards the ground based on the relationship between the applicant and President Putin, of the applicant’s status as shareholder in the Volga Group, and of his status as shareholder in Bank Rossiya.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties, in particular, of the principle of the free movement of citizens of the European Union and of the rules relating to the applicable legal basis.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 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 (OJ 2022 L 59, p. 1).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 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 58, p. 1).
Action brought on 18 May 2022 — Pumpyanskiy v Council

(Case T-291/22)

(2022/C 257/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alexander Dmitrievich Pumpyanskiy (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and L. Burguin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 2022, (1) in so far as it includes the applicant at position No 719 of the Annex to that decision;

— annul Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022, (2) in so far as it includes the applicant at position No 719 of Annex I to that regulation;

— order the Council to make a provisional payment of EUR 100 000 as compensation for the non-material harm sustained 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 plea in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and of the administration’s duty to state reasons.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment with respect to the reasons relied on by the Council.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and infringement of fundamental rights with regard to the adoption of restrictive measures against the applicant and the unjustified interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights as laid down by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the principle of legal certainty as regards the application of the criterion regarding persons ‘associated’ with persons included in the list of persons subject to restrictive measures.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 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 80, p. 31).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 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 80, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 May 2022 — BB Services v EUIPO — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure with a protrusion on the head)

(Case T-297/22)

(2022/C 257/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: BB Services GmbH (Flörsheim am Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark)

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 three-dimensional mark (Shape of a toy figure with a protrusion on the head) — EU trade mark No 50 450

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2022 in Case R 1355/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and declare EU trade mark No 50 450 invalid;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 May 2022 — AMO Development v EUIPO (Medical instruments)

(Case T-311/22)

(2022/C 276/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AMO Development LLC (Santa Ana, California, United States) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor, and T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Design: Community designs Nos 2 712 885-0001 and 2 712 885-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2022 in Case R 1433/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 May 2022 — Krematorium am Waldfriedhof Schwäbisch Hall v EUIPO (aquamation)

(Case T-319/22)

(2022/C 276/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Krematorium am Waldfriedhof Schwäbisch Hall GmbH & Co. KG (Schwäbisch Hall, Germany) (represented by: F. Dehn, L. Maritzen and C. Kleiner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark ‘aquamation’ — Application No 18 453 264

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2022 in Case R 2154/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings 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;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 May 2022 — Sattvica v EUIPO — Herederos de Diego Armando Maradona (DIEGO MARADONA)

(Case T-299/22)

(2022/C 284/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sattvica SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: S. Sánchez Quiles, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Herederos de Diego Armando Maradona (Buenos Aires)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU trade mark No 2 243 947 DIEGO MARADONA — Registration No T 019 473 761

Proceedings before EUIPO: Recordal in the files and in the Register

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2022 in Case R 755/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and replace it with another decision recording the transfer of trade mark No 2 243 947 DIEGO MARADONA to SATTVICA SA;

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

Plea in law
—

by way of variation, declare that the assessment in the 2019 staff appraisal procedure be maintained, namely B in Ability, C in Efficiency and B in Conduct in the service;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 May 2022 — Korres v EUIPO — Naos (EST. KORRES 1996 HYDRA-BIOME)

(Case T-328/22)

(2022/C 303/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Korres AE — Fysika Proionta (Metamorphosi, Attica, Greece) (represented by: S. Tsimikalis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Naos SAS (Aix-en-Provence, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark EST. KORRES 1996 HYDRA-BIOME — Application No 18 197 304

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2022 in Case R 1410/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). — The limitations on the applicant’s fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, resulting from the fact that US authorities are permitted under US law to access and use data transferred from the European Union to the United States, are not regulated in such a way as to fulfil requirements that would be essentially equivalent to those existing in EU law under the second sentence of Article 52(1) of the Charter. — Neither 50 US Code § 1881a (Section 702 FISA) nor Executive Order 12333 ensures that Union citizens have the opportunity or right to oppose access to their personal data or to enforce effectively their rights under Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. — The applicant’s right of access under Article 17(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 is an essential condition for the enjoyment of his fundamental rights under Article 7 and Article 8(1) of the Charter. The defendant is depriving the applicant of the possibility of enforcing his fundamental rights due to its failure to act on his request for information. The encroachment on the fundamental rights under Article 7 and Article 8(1) of the Charter which accompanied the defendant’s failure to act is therefore not justified.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 June 2022 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-366/22)

(2022/C 311/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 26 July 2021 on State aid SA. 56867 (2020/N, ex 2020/PN) — Germany — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Condor Flugdienst GmbH (1); and

— order the European Commission 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 in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed manifest errors of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s, i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services and free establishment, and Regulation 1008/2008 (2).

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the Applicant’s procedural rights.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its duty to state reasons.

(1) OJ 2022, C/177, p. 1.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008, on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast), OJ 2008, L 293, p. 3.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 July 2022 — Topas v EUIPO — Tarczyński (VEGE STORY)

(Case T-434/22)

(2022/C 326/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Topas GmbH (Mössingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Hofmann and W. Göpfert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tarczyński S.A. (Trzebnica, Poland)

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 VEGE STORY — Application for registration No 18 213 582

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2022 in Case R 1977/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as the opposition decision of 29 September 2021 has been annulled and the opposition has been rejected in its entirety;

— order the opponent to bear the costs of the appeal and opposition proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 July 2022 — Hofmeir Magnetics v EUIPO — Healthfactories (Hofmag)

(Case T-452/22)

(2022/C 340/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hofmeir Magnetics Ltd (Witney, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baur, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Healthfactories GmbH (Saaldorf-Surheim, Germany)

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 Hofmag — Application for registration No 18 107 493

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2022 in Case R 1367/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceeding.

Pleas in law

— Incorrect restriction of the claimant’s unregistered mark HOFMAG in terms of a designation which does not satisfy the criterion ‘of more than mere local significance’ within the meaning of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 July 2022 — Coljnar v EUIPO — Barbarian Sports Wear (Barbarian Fashion)

(Case T-427/22)

(2022/C 326/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: Nataly Coljnar (Maribor, Slovenia) (represented by: A. Pregelj, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Barbarian Sports Wear Inc. (Kitchener, Ontario, Canada)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark Barbarian fashion — Application for registration No 18 180 380

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2022 in Case R 1953/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the company Barbarian Sports Wear Inc. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law