ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/19

Action brought on 23 November 2015 — Novartis v OHIM (Representation of a crescent in black and white)

(Case T-678/15)

(2016/C 090/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Zintler, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a crescent in black and white) — Application for registration No 13 191 036

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2015 in Case R 89/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare that Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 does not preclude the sign at issue (Community trade mark No 13 191 036) in respect of the goods in Class 5 described in the application for registration;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of essential procedural requirements and of the applicants’ rights of defence, resulting from the inconsistent legal characterisation of the conduct, the contradictory, or the very least, insufficient reasoning regarding the legal characterisation of the alleged infringement, the failure to give access to exculpatory evidence, and the reliance on several legal and factual elements in the contested decision that were not addressed in the statement of objections.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/23

Action brought on 15 January 2016 — Gauff v OHIM — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (GAUFF)

(Case T-13/16)

(2016/C 090/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Molnar)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Gauff’ — Community mark No 6 327 977

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2015 in Case R 549/2015-1

Form of order

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; or in the alternative, send the case back to OHIM for further examination of the disputed matters that were, in error, not examined;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/34

Action brought on 3 February 2016 — Crédit Mutuel Arkéa v ECB

(Case T-52/16)

(2016/C 111/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Crédit Mutuel Arkéa (Le Relecq Kerhuon, France) (represented by: H. Savoie, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Central Bank decision of 4 December 2015 (ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/40) setting out the prudential requirements for Groupe Crédit Mutuel.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-712/15, Crédit Mutuel Arkéa v ECB.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/36

Action brought on 21 January 2016 — Indeutsch International v OHIM — Crafts Americana (Representation of repeated curves between parallel lines)

(Case T-20/16)

(2016/C 106/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: M/S. Indeutsch International (Noida, India) (represented by: D. Stone, D. Meale, A. Dykes, Solicitors and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Crafts Americana Group, Inc. (Vancouver, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of repeated curves between parallel lines) — Community trade mark No 8 884 264

Procedure before OHIM: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2015 in Case R 1814/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and the other party to pay their own costs and those of the applicant.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/38

Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-37/12 De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-73/16 P)

(2016/C 118/44)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul point 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 59 to 61, 63 to 69 and 71 of the judgment itself;

— Consequently, declare that bullying was committed by the EIB against Dr De Nicola, and order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs. Subject to completion of the requested medical examination;

— Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-37/12).

The grounds of appeal and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-70/16 P De Nicola v EIB.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/38

Action brought on 12 February 2016 — Coca-Cola v EUIPO — Mitico (Master)

(Case T-61/16)

(2016/C 111/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz and S. Baran, Barristers; D. Stone and A. Dykes, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) (Damascus, Syria)

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: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Master’ — Application for registration No 9 091 612

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2015 in Case R 1251/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the EU trade mark Applicant to bear their own costs and pay those costs of the Applicant for Annulment at every stage of the opposition and appeal process, including the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(5)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
3.

By its third plea in law, the applicant submits that the Commission’s decision infringed the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU. On the one hand, the Commission had previously indicated that the conditions for initiating a procedure against Hungary under Article 7 TEU had not been met, wherefore the decision registering the citizens’ initiative could let it be thought that the Commission does not find it inconceivable that the initiative in question may be well founded. On the other, the Commission, in accordance with that principle, ought to have informed Hungary of the existence of the citizens’ initiative, which concerns it directly, and given it an opportunity of submitting its observations.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 78 and 80 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, Article II.21 of Annex II to the FP7 Grant agreement (General conditions), the principle of good faith laid down in Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code and the principles of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/20

Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Savant Systems v EUIPO — Savant Group (SAVANT)

(Case T-110/16)

(2016/C 175/24)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Savant Systems LLC (Osterville, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: O. Nilgen, A. Kockläuner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Savant Group Ltd (Burton in Kendal, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SAVANT’ — EU trade mark No 32 318

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 in Case R 33/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as protection of the contested EU trademark No 32 318 ‘SAVANT’ was maintained with regard to ‘computer software’ in class 9 and for all services in classes 41 and 42;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in connection with Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009 insofar as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that the proprietor had proven genuine use of the contested CTM for the goods and services as registered, in particular ‘computer software’ and the related services in classes 41 and 42;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/53

Action brought on 11 March 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Weetabix (Alpenschmaus)

(Case T-103/16)

(2016/C 156/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Weetabix Ltd (Kettering, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark with the word element ‘Alpenschmaus’ — Application for registration No 10 198 992

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2016 in Case R 2725/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/40

Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Mundipharma v EUIPO — Multipharma (MULTIPHARMA)

(Case T-144/16)

(2016/C 191/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Mundipharma AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Multipharma SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

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: EU word mark ‘MULTIPHARMA’ — Application for registration No 9 537 887

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2016 in Case R 2950/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/17

Action brought on 17 March 2016 — Philip Morris Brands v EUIPO — Explosal (Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel)

(Case T-105/16)

(2016/C 175/20)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Brands Sàrl (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Explosal Ltd (Larnaca, Cyprus)

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 figurative mark in black and white containing the word elements ‘Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel’ — EU trade mark No 10 008 084

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2016 in Case R 2775/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and either reject EUTM application no. 10008084 for all goods or, subsidiarily, send the case back to the Board of Appeal for further consideration of the prohibitions laid down by Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in light of the submitted evidence of repute and enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark;

— order EUIPO and the other party to pay their own the costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena et Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (widiba)

(Case T-84/16)

(2016/C 211/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (Siena, Italy), Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan and D. Contini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ING-DIBa AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Applicants

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘widiba’ — Application for registration No 12 192 415

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 in Joined Cases R 113/2015-2 and R 174/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision as it did not grant the request for restitutio in integrum, and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

In the event of dismissal of conclusion 1) above,

— annul the contested decision at issue as it upheld the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the trade mark application No 12 192 415 for some specific goods and services, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 415 is eligible for registration for such goods and services or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures;

In any case,

— annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld ING-DIBa’s appeal on credit cards, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 15 is eligible for registration for such goods or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures

In any case,

— order EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, also the costs and legal fees borne by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Wise Dialog Bank SpA with regard to the present proceedings and the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 81(1) and 60 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/36

Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-131/16)

(2016/C 191/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J. Halleux, acting as agents, assisted by M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the application;

— annul Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium in as much as it does not properly identify the state aid measure, classifies the excess profit ruling system as a scheme, and considers it incompatible state aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU;

— in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision in so far as they consider the excess profit ruling system as state aid incompatible with the internal market and order the recovery of the alleged state aid from the corporate groups to which the recipients belong in breach of general principles of EU law;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.

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 a violation of Article 2(6) TFEU, Article 5(1) and (2) TEU by using the state aid rules to unilaterally define the tax jurisdiction of the Belgian State.

2. Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and in its classification as an aid scheme that does not require any further implementing measures within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and Article 107 TFEU.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFEU in considering that the excess profit ruling system constitutes a state aid measure. The Commission has not evidenced the state resources involved, has not identified the existence of an advantage and has erroneously assessed selectivity and distortion of competition.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the identification of the beneficiaries of the alleged aid not only as the Belgian entities subject to tax in Belgium but also the multinational groups to which they belong.

5. Fifth plea in law, in the alternative, alleging an infringement of the general principle of legality and Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) as recovery may be requested from the multinational groups to which the Belgian entities that have received a ruling belong.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SHAPE)

(Case T-180/16)

(2016/C 222/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guinot SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASTER SHAPE’ — Application for registration No 11 566 262

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2907/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 April 2016 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Bloss and Others (CERTIFIED FINANCIAL ENGINEER CFE)

(Case T-155/16)

(2016/C 211/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States) (represented by: S. Rohlfing and G. Engels, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Michael Bloss (Nürtingen, Germany), Dietmar Ernst (Nürtingen), Joachim Häcker (Nürtingen)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CERTIFIED FINANCIAL ENGINEER CFE’ — Application for registration No 9 569 765

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 in Case R 454/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the opposition filed by the plaintiff against the trademark application No 9 569 765 by the participants;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, or;

— in case the participants will join the proceedings as interveners, to order the participants to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff both in the appeal proceedings before the EUIPO and in the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/33

Action brought on 9 May 2016 – Perry Ellis International Group v EUIPO (PRO PLAYER)

(Case T-220/16)

(2016/C 232/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: O. Günzel, C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘PRO PLAYER’ – Application for registration No 13 258 595

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 in Case R 1091/2015-2

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

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/22

Action brought on 18 April 2016 – Wöhlke v EUIPO – Danielle Roches (ALIQUA)

(Case T-173/16)

(2016/C 232/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Christoph Wöhlke (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: V. Rust-Sorge, lawyer).

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Danielle Roches SARL (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ALIQUA’ – Application for registration No 12 079 381

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 January 2016 in Case R 905/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— revoke the contested decision.

Plea in law