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

Action brought on 8 November 2021 — Kaczorowska v EUIPO — Groupe Marcelle (MAESELLE)

(Case T-718/21)

(2022/C 2/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Katarzyna Kaczorowska (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Kurcman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupe Marcelle Inc. (Lachine, Quebec, Canada)

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 MAESELLE — Application for registration No 18 130 823

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2021 in Case R 671/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of Opposition Division dated 15/02/2021 in opposition proceedings No B 3 108 698 with respect to all the goods and services for which the opposition has been upheld;

— refer the case back to EUIPO so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register the trade mark at issue in respect of all the goods and services covered, without prejudice to those which are uncontested;

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

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the freedom and independence of Members of the Parliament and of the immunities conferred on them by the Treaties. The applicants consider that the contested decision is contrary to Article 2 of the Statute for Members of the Parliament (which lays down the principle that members are free and independent) and Article 7 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (which provides, in particular, that no administrative or other restriction shall be imposed on the free movement of Members of the Parliament travelling to or from the place of meeting of the Parliament). The consequence of the contested decision is that the applicants must present a valid EU digital COVID certificate each time they wish to visit the Parliament. If they are unable or unwilling to present such a certificate, the applicants will be denied access to the Parliament’s buildings.
—

annul the decision of 11 December 2020 by which the Brussels Settlement Office refused the renewal of the serious illness scheme in respect of the applicant’s son;
—

annul the Commission’s decision of 29 October 2021 in case COMP/M.10493 taken pursuant to Art. 8(5)(a) of Council Regulation No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (1) (i) finding that Illumina implemented the acquisition of GRAIL in breach of Art. 7 EUMR; (ii) imposing on Illumina and GRAIL the interim measures set out in section 4.7 of the decision; and (iii) requiring Illumina and GRAIL to implement or procure the implementation of such measures immediately, failing which periodic penalties shall be imposed (the Decision); and
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 November 2021 — Balaban v EUIPO (Stahlwerk)

(Case T-705/21)

(2022/C 37/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Okan Balaban (Bornheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Schaaf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Stahlwerk’ — Application for registration No 18 235 592

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2021 in Case R 77/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s refusal decision of 18 November 2020 in respect of application number 18 235 592 as well as the contested decision, in so far as the application was rejected in part, and order the defendant to register the trade mark for all goods and services sought by the application;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 1 December 2021 — Dorsum v EUIPO — ID Quantique (Clavis)

(Case T-758/21)

(2022/C 51/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Dorsum Informatikai Fejlesztő és Szolgáltató Zrt. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Gy. Hajdu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ID Quantique SA (Carouge, Switzerland)

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: European Union word mark ‘Clavis’ — registration No 18064876

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2021 in Case R 189/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— primarily, amend the contested decision and uphold the applicant’s action;

— alternatively, annul the contested decision with the effects also extending to the decision issued by EUIPO on 27 November 2020;

— order compensation to be paid to the applicant for the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 47(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 November 2021 — Associação do Socorro e Amparo v EUIPO — De Bragança (quis ut Deus)

(Case T-752/21)

(2022/C 37/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Associação do Socorro e Amparo (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J. Motta Veiga, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Duarte Pio De Bragança (Sintra, Portugal)

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 quis ut Deus — European Union trade mark No 9 131 566

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2021 in Case R 581/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— uphold the present action and replace the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal with a decision declaring European Union trade mark No 9 131 566 invalid in respect of all goods and services protected by the mark on the basis of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on the grounds that the mark has not been put to genuine use for a continuous period of five years;

— order the defendant to pay the costs and other expenses incurred in the proceedings, including lawyers’ fees the amount of which is to be determined subsequently.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
—

order compensation of his material prejudice resulting from the loss of a chance to become a permanent official based on participation in internal competitions restricted to temporary agents at AD level, as estimated in the application;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 December 2021 — UniSkin v EUIPO — Unicskin (UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild)

(Case T-787/21)

(2022/C 73/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UniSkin ApS (Silkeborg, Denmark) (represented by: M. Hoffgaard Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unicskin, SL (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 UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild — Application for registration No 18 153 435

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2021 in Case R 771/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and, subsequently, reject the opposition against the trade mark in its entirety;

Plea in law
1.

By their first plea, the applicants claim that the Contested Regulation is vitiated in law insofar as it concludes an investigation which was initiated — by means of the Initiation Regulation — without the Commission having met the standard of evidence required under Article 13(3) of the Basic Regulation (first limb of the first plea). In fact, the Commission blindly relied on the content of the Request, which is, however, incomplete and significantly flawed being based on unreliable information which the Commission did not verify or complement. Additionally, the applicants claim that the Commission failed to properly address the applicants’ comments on the unlawfulness of the initiation (second limb of the first plea).
—

In that respect, the applicant relies on a breach of the principle of sound administration and diligence in administrative action in the context of the audit carried out by Ernst & Young (EY), a breach of the rights of the defence in the context of the audit carried out by EY, breach of the principle of sound administration due to a failure to comply with the duty of impartiality in administrative action, and a misinterpretation of the contract in the context of the relationship with EY.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(a) of the Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the penalty is not proportionate to the nature of the presumed misconduct (regarding the allowances received in respect of the applicant’s mother as dependent child) and to the circumstances in which the alleged misconduct occurred; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from a manifest error of assessment.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 January 2022 — FFI Female Financial Invest v EUIPO — MLP Finanzberatung SE (Financery)

(Case T-7/22)

(2022/C 84/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: FFI Female Financial Invest GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Gramsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MLP Finanzberatung SE (Wiesloch, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU trade mark Financery — Application No 18 041 007

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2021 in Case R 1820/2020-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that ECDC failed to follow essential procedural requirements, including its own internal rules and code of good administrative behaviour. It is argued that ECDC disregarded recognized risk assessment methodology, failed to accord with the requisite standards, including that of scientific excellence and independence, and failed to fulfil its legal obligations in the production and publishing of the contested acts. It is further argued that the contested risk assessment reports are grossly misleading and alarmist, the effects of which were foreseeable to the ECDC and a foregone conclusion due to the reliance placed upon those reports by Union institutions and Member States alike.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 January 2022 — Sanoptis v EUIPO — Synoptis Pharma (SANOPTIS)

(Case T-30/22)

(2022/C 119/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sanoptis Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Rost, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Synoptis Pharma sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland)

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 SANOPTIS — Application for registration No 17 934 770

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2021 in Case R 850/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant;

— orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in the failure to state reasons in the contested decision;
1.

First plea in law, alleging an illegality in the exclusion of Siemens SAS from Lots 1 and 2. The applicant alleges, first, a manifest error of assessment in the scoring of the tenders by the European Parliament and, second, breach of the principle of transparency by reason of the transmission by the Parliament to Siemens SAS of a flawed simulation tool which played a decisive role in the preparation of the tenders.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 January 2022 — Bensoussan v EUIPO — Lulu’s Fashion Lounge (LOULOU STUDIO)

(Case T-24/22)

(2022/C 138/26)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ugo Bensoussan (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Bouchara and A. Maier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lulu’s Fashion Lounge LLC (Chico, California, 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 word mark LOULOU STUDIO — Application for registration No 18 048 245

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 November 2021 in Case R 480/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the appeal;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the company LULU’S FASHION LOUNGE LLC to bear their own costs of the proceedings and to jointly pay those incurred by Mr. Ugo Bensoussan, including the costs incurred for the proceedings before the EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Ruhorimbere v Council

(Case T-91/22)

(2022/C 148/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Éric Ruhorimbere (Mbuji-Mayi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

— annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in Annex I to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Mutondo v Council

(Case T-94/22)

(2022/C 148/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kalev Mutondo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

— annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in Annex I to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 February 2022 — Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas (frutania)

(Case T-109/22)

(2022/C 158/16)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Markus Schneider (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Bergermann and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas, SL (Zaragoza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark frutania in blue — Application for registration No 11 987 419

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 December 2021 in Case R 1058/2017-1

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 appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the amendment to the Rules of Procedure 2020 and its adoption on the morning of 10 November 2020 were unlawful, on the ground, first, that that amendment goes against the ratio legis of Article 21 of the Rules of Procedure and the democratic principles protected therein, secondly, that Article 22 itself was not complied with when it was adopted and implemented and, thirdly, that the texts adopted lack legal clarity.
—

accordingly, acknowledge that Mr [confidential] (1) is entitled to receive an orphan’s pension as defined in Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. Otherwise, in so far as necessary, grant Mr [confidential] the orphan’s pension provided for in the first paragraph of Article 80 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 March 2022 — Transformers Manufacturing Company v EUIPO — H&F (TMC TRANSFORMERS)

(Case T-167/22)

(2022/C 207/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Transformers Manufacturing Company Pty Ltd (Melbourne, Australia) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: H&F Srl (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark TMC TRANSFORMERS — Application for registration No 17 264 664

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2022 in Case R 1212/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— first of all and principally, acknowledge H&F Srl’s lack of capacity and declare the proceedings at first and second instance before EUIPO inadmissible;

— alter the contested decision on the ground that it is unfounded in fact and law and based on insufficient reasoning;

— in the alternative, overturn the contested decision on the ground that it is unfounded in fact and law and refer the action back to EUIPO;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs for the three stages of legal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Lack of capacity to bring proceedings on the part of H&F Srl, a matter on which EUIPO did not rule and for which it did not provide sufficient reasons;

— Incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009) in fact and in law;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to adequately define the beneficiary by (i) considering that KLM was the sole beneficiary of the aid provided by the Netherlands and (ii) failing to ensure that the aid previously granted to Air France-KLM group could not benefit or ‘spill-over’ to KLM.
—

adopt, under Articles 88 and 89 of the Rules of Procedure, a measure of organisation of procedure seeking to have the ECB disclose the decisions concerning irrevocable payment commitments taken in respect of other banking institutions for 2021, particularly those relating to the other French banking institutions.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 March 2022 — Dehaen v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)

(Case T-158/22)

(2022/C 207/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Karolien Dehaen (Schilde, Belgium) (represented by: T. van Innis and A. Van der Planken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: National Geographic Society (Washington, District of Columbia, United States)

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 word mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC –European Union trade mark No 9 419 731

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 December 2021 in Case R 975/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons provided for in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicant claims in that regard that in the present case the contested acts do not set out clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the institution, the author of the act, which means that the applicant cannot ascertain the reasons for the measure adopted and prevents the competent court from exercising its power of review.