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

Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Beveland v EUIPO — Super B (BUCANERO)

(Case T-29/21)

(2021/C 79/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Beveland, SA (Sant Joan les Fonts, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Super B, SL (Talavera de la Reina, Spain)

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: Word mark BUCANERO — European Union trade mark No 390 641

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2020 in Case R 1046/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, expressly declaring the EU trademark BUCANERO (word mark) to be revoked for all the goods registered in Classes 32 and 33;

— order EUIPO and the proprietor of the trade mark at issue, SUPER B, S.L., to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, including the costs relating to the revocation proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law

Infringement of Articles 18 and 58 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 January 2021 — Advanced Superabrasives v EUIPO — Adi (ASI ADVANCED SUPERABRASIVES)

(Case T-4/21)

(2021/C 62/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Advanced Superabrasives, Inc. (Mars Hill, North Carolina, United States) (represented by: D. Piróg and A. Rytel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Adi Srl (Thiene, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark ‘ASI ADVANCED SUPERABRASIVES’ — Application No 17 163 734

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2020 in Case R 2713/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs

— in the event that the intervener intervenes in the proceedings, order that party to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 27(3)(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; and
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 January 2021 — SFD v EUIPO — Allmax Nutrition (ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION)

(Case T-35/21)

(2021/C 98/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SFD S.A. (Opole, Poland) (represented by: T. Grucelski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allmax Nutrition Inc. (North York, Ontario, 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 figurative mark ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION — Application for registration No 15 971 435

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2020 in Case R 511/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition;

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

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)

(Case T-26/21)

(2021/C 88/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: I. Junkar, I. Fowler, M. Petersenn and B. Lüthge, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark THINK DIFFERENT — European Union trade mark No 671 321

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2020 in Case R 2011/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2021 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (doglover)

(Case T-114/21)

(2021/C 128/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Growth Finance Plus AG (Gommiswald, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark doglover — Application for registration No 18 107 487

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2020 in Case R 720/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 February 2021 — Jieyang Defa Industry v EUIPO — Mattel (Dolls’ head)

(Case T-84/21)

(2021/C 110/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jieyang Defa Industry Co. Ltd (Jiedong, China) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mattel, Inc. (El Segundo, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 2 459 701-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2020 in Case R 2021/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— upheld the appeal and annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener, if it was the case, to bear the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 February 2021 — Creaticon v EUIPO — Paul Hartmann (SK SKINTEGRA THE RARE MOLECULE)

(Case T-93/21)

(2021/C 138/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Creaticon d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: P. Krmpotić, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark SK SKINTEGRA THE RARE MOLECULE — International registration designating the European Union No 1 424 199

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2020 in Case R 847/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— allow the trade mark registration No 1 424 199 for the relevant products in Class 3;

— alternatively, annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to reimburse the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, in that the Council found the applicant to be involved in acts constituting serious human rights breaches in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The applicant criticises the context of the review which preceded the renewal of restrictive measures against him and disputes any current involvement in the events underpinning the decision to include him in the list of persons covered by Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo and repealing Common Position 2008/369/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 30).
Action brought on 15 February 2021 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-95/21)

(2021/C 138/63)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, P. Barros da Costa, M. J. Marques, L. Borrego and A. M. Soares de Freitas, acting as Agents, and by M. Gorjão-Henriques and A. Saavedra, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should

— order that the documents in the administrative procedure that gave rise to the adoption of the contested decision be added to the case file, in the terms sought by the present application;

— annul Article 1 and Articles 4 to 6 of European Commission Decision of 4 December 2020, C(2020)8550 final, ‘on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) — Regime III’;

— order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea, alleging an error in law, on the ground that the measure at issue was of general, and not selective, application and therefore did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

2. Second plea, alleging that, in any event, the Commission failed to demonstrate that the criterion of distortion of competition and of effects on trade between Member States had been met.

3. Third plea, alleging an error in law concerning the application of Article 108 TFEU and Articles 21 to 23 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, on the ground that the aid in question was existing aid.

4. Fourth plea, alleging an error of law in the decision, on the ground that Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) Regime III was implemented in accordance with the Commission’s decisions of 2007 and 2013, and with Articles 107 and 108 TFEU.

5. Fifth plea, alleging an error as to the assumptions of fact in the decision and/or a failure to state reasons, on the ground that the requirements of the tax scheme and the supervision thereof by the national authorities were suitable for the purposes of monitoring MFZ Regime III.

6. Sixth plea, alleging an error as to the assumptions of fact in the decision and/or a failure to state reasons, on the ground that the Portuguese Republic carried out checks as to the requirement that jobs be created/maintained.
—

order the European Commission to pay a sum of EUR 397 038,30 [to QA] on account of the material damage she suffered as a result of the infringement by the Commission of the principles of proportionality, good administration and the rights of the defence, as derived from European Union law;
Action brought on 19 March 2021 — Union Syndicale Solidaires des SDIS de France et DOM/TOM v Commission

(Case T-152/21)

(2021/C 182/86)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Union Syndicale Solidaires des services départementaux d’incendie et de secours (SDIS) de France et DOM/TOM (Nîmes, France) (represented by: O. Coudray, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— order the European Union (European Commission) to pay the applicant EUR 10 000 in compensation for the non-pecuniary harm which it suffered, with interest as set by the European Central Bank for capital refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points;

— hold the European Union (European Commission) liable for all the costs, in the amount of EUR 6 600.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action for damages, the applicant criticises the Commission for not having responded for over a year and a half to the negligence complaint which it brought in respect of the French Republic. The applicant also complains that the Commission did not inform it promptly of the state of the assessment which it carried out and did not take a position on the complaint within a reasonable period of time. According to the applicant, the Commission therefore acted unlawfully, such as to give rise to non-contractual liability of the European Union.
Action brought on 16 February 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission

(Case T-96/21)

(2021/C 148/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Heidi Amort (Jenesien, Italy) and 35 other applicants (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should annul the contested implementing decision, as amended and supplemented.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against European Commission Implementing Decision C(2020) 9598 (final) of 21 December 2020 granting a conditional marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Comirnaty — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified)’, a medicinal product for human use, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested implementing decision infringes Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006. (1) It has been scientifically proven that the worldwide panic on account of the high mortality rate supposedly connected with the SARS-CoV-2 infection is unfounded. Furthermore, the WHO and the EU have not duly recognised the crisis situation as a public health threat.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested implementing decision infringes Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 due to: — the absence of a positive risk-benefit balance, as defined in Article 1(28a) of Directive 2001/83/EC; (2) — the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, since the applicant is not likely to be in a position to provide the comprehensive clinical data; — the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, since there are no unmet medical needs that will be fulfilled by the authorised medicinal product; — the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, (3) Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. (4)

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging serious infringement of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and Articles 3, 35 and 38 of the EU Charter.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 of 29 March 2006 on the conditional marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2006 L 92, p. 6).

(2) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products and amending Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 121).

(4) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).
Action brought on 31 March 2021 — QN v Commission

(Case T-179/21)

(2021/C 206/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: QN (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the applicant’s CDR (1) of 2019;

— subsidiarily, annul the applicant’s CDR in so far it contains contested comments;

— together with, and in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the CDR of 2019;

— order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant; and

— order the defendant 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 defendant breached its obligation to set objectives in the CDR. The applicant also argues that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment and breached its duty of care and of the principle of good administration.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, breached Article 7(3) of the defendant’s decision of 16 December 2013 (2) and of the defendant’s internal Guidance for RO (3). The applicant further complains that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and misused its power. It is also alleged that the defendant breached its duty of care and its duty of good administration.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicant also complains that the defendant infringed the rules of objectivity and impartiality.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 296(2) of the TFEU. The applicant also argues that the defendant breached Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations and of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It is also alleged that the defendant breached its duty to state reasons.

(1) Career Development Report.

(2) Commission decision of 16.12.2013 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and implementing the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations [C (2013) 8985 final].

(3) Commission internal directive ‘Constructive dialogue and fair report: guidance for Reporting Officers’.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 March 2021 — Völkl v EUIPO — Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) (Marker Völkl)

(Case T-156/21)

(2021/C 182/88)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Völkl GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: C. Raßmann, M. Suether and F. Adinolfi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) GmbH (Baar, Switzerland)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Marker Völkl — International registration designating the European Union No W00891106

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2021 in Case R 0055/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the earlier appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 April 2021 — Lück v EUIPO — R.H. Investment (MALLE)

(Case T-188/21)

(2021/C 217/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Jörg Lück (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: L. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: R.H. Investment UG (limited liability company) (Erlangen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark MALLE — EU trade mark No 2 631 166

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2020 in Case R 1393/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in conjunction with the decision of the Cancellation Division of 18 May 2020;

— order the intervener to pay all the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 10 April 2021 — Aloe Vera of Europe v Commission

(Case T-189/21)

(2021/C 206/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aloe Vera of Europe BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Van Vooren, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/468; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on only one plea in law, to the effect that the contested act violates the precautionary principle both substantively and procedurally.

1. First sub-plea in law, alleging that Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/468 (1) violates the precautionary principle. The applicant argues that the precautionary principle allows preventive regulatory action only when the scientific assessment shows that a potential risk is exceeding the level which would still be acceptable for society. In this case, the contested regulation banned Aloe vera inner leaf gel, while the scientific assessment showed that there was no risk for this product. The applicant further alleges that, rather than being based on science, the contested regulation was the product of a series of arbitrary decisions.

2. Second sub-plea in law, alleging that Regulation (EU) 2021/468 was adopted in procedural breach of the precautionary principle. The applicant alleges that the Commission failed to adhere to the framework set out in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) and wrongfully relied on the written procedure under Article 3(5) of the Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and violated the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

(1) Commission Regulation (EU)o2021/468 of 18o Marcho2021 amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) Noo1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards botanical species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives (OJ 2021, L 96, p. 6)

(2) Regulation (EC) Noo1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 Decembero 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (OJ 2006, L 404, p. 26)

(3) Regulation (EU) Noo182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16o Februaryo 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011, L 55, p. 13)