ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/30

Action brought on 10 May 2016 — GP Joule PV v EUIPO — Green Power Technologies (GPTech)

(Case T-235/16)

(2016/C 279/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: GP Joule PV GmbH & Co. KG (Reußenköge, Germany) (represented by: F. Döring, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Green Power Technologies, SL (Bollullos de la Mitación, Spain)

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 elements ‘GPTech’ — Application for registration No 12 593 869

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2016 in Case R 848/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision and reject the applicant’s trademark application No 12 593 869;

— as a conditional application, annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the Regulation No 207/2009 as the information requirements stated by Rule 17(4) of Regulation No 2868/95 which is dedicated to protect the opponent was not held applicable;

— Infringement of an essential procedural requirement as the procedure was unfair to the opponent pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 47 of the Charter of fundamental rights.

— Failure of the Office to inform the opponent that prerequisites as stated in Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 were not fulfilled;

— Wrong application of Rule 76(2) of Regulation No 2868/95, as the procedure was unfair to the opponent in the light of deficiencies of the e-filing opposition form and of the information provided by the opposition division;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to identify a proper legal base for Article 1(1) of Decision 2011/172/CFSP (the ‘Decision’) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 (the ‘Regulation’). There is no evidence that the Council undertook any review of the legal basis of Article 1(1) of the Decision in adopting the Contested Decision, notwithstanding the express obligation to do so under Article 5 of the Decision. The fact that Article 1(1) may have had a valid legal basis when it was first adopted on 21 March 2011 does not provide the provision with an enduring legal basis until 2016 or later.
—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/475 of 31 March 2016 amending Decision 2013/183/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/659 of 27 April 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in so far as those measures purport to include the Applicant in Annex V to Council Regulation EC 329/2007 and in Annex II to Decision 2013/183/CFSP;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/26

Action brought on 14 June 2016 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Primark Holdings (LOVE TO LOUNGE)

(Case T-305/16)

(2016/C 287/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Kefferpütz and A. Berger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Primark Holdings (Dublin, Ireland)

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 word mark ‘LOVE TO LOUNGE’ — EU trade mark No 8 500 548

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2016 in Case R 489/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and declare invalid EU trade mark No 8 500 548;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

— order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and breach of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, to the extent that the Commission did not correctly assess whether the contested measure was selective in nature. — Article 185(2)(b) of the WIB 1992 and the excess profit exemption system arising out of it are open to all undertakings in a comparable factual and legal situation and which conduct the economic transactions that form the subject matter of the contested measure. The contested measure is therefore not restricted to specific undertakings that can be defined on the basis of particular features, and is thus not selective for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU. — In the alternative, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that the exemption of excess profit did not form part of the reference system. The exemption of excess profit on the basis of synergies and economies of scale in application of the arm’s length principle is an integral component of the provisions that determine total taxable income, and thus cannot be regarded as constituting a derogation from the reference system that leads to selectivity. — In the further alternative, the Commission is unable to prove that the arm’s length principle was incorrectly applied by the Belgische Rulingcommissie (Belgian Tax Ruling Committee) in the context of the application of Article 185(2)(b) of the WIB 1992. The Commission’s reasoning is not coherent and takes into account important factors which are, however, contradictory or lack the requisite coherence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/32

Action brought on 15 June 2016 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (360o)

(Case T-332/16)

(2016/C 296/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler and A. Stolz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘360o’ — Application for registration No 14 042 162

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2016 in Case R 2288/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/39

Action brought on 17 June 2016 — CEE Bankwatch Network v Commission

(Case T-307/16)

(2016/C 305/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CEE Bankwatch Network (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: C. Kiss, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the contested Commission Decision of 15 April 2016, reference number Ref. GestDem No 2015/5866 null and void; and

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

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 that Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1) is applicable to Euratom documents: — the word ‘Treaty’ should not be understood in different contexts regarding each piece of EU legislation, but that it should have a uniform meaning.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful: — access to the required documents does not endanger the interest of nuclear safety because the request for information did not affect nuclear safety issues; — the defendant seriously breached its obligation stemming from Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) and applicable case law of the EU Court to give specific reasons for non-disclosure.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the reference by the defendant to the protection of commercial interest is flawed and fails to specify the general considerations on which it bases the presumption that disclosure of the required documents would undermine commercial interest: — the information withheld by the defendant as affecting commercial interest does not satisfy the criteria of commercial information and its age is not taken into account when deciding by the defendant upon the confirmatory application; — there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested data given that public interest is in the disclosure of nuclear information.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ L 264, 25.9.2006, p. 13)

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/44

Action brought on 23 June 2016 — Paice v EUIPO — Blackmore (DEEP PURPLE)

(Case T-328/16)

(2016/C 305/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Engelman, Barrister and J. Stephenson, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States)

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 word mark ‘DEEP PURPLE’ — Application for registration No 11 772 721

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 736/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in any way it sees fit, namely that the trade mark be rejected in its entirety for all of the goods and services for which it was filed;

— order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of this appeal.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/48

Action brought on 21 July 2016 — Asna v EUIPO — Wings Software (ASNA WINGS)

(Case T-382/16)

(2016/C 335/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Asna, Inc. (San Antonio, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Devaureix and J.C. Erdozain López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wings Software BVBA (Heist-Op-den-Berg, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘ASNA WINGS’ — Application for registration No 11 388 352

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2016 in Case R 436/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible, together with all of the relevant documents and copies;

— declare the proposed evidence admissible;

— annul and declare inapplicable the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Error as to the proof of use by the other party;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/24

Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Jindal Saw et Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

(Case T-300/16)

(2016/C 314/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India) and Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/387 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron), originating in India, in so far as it relates to the Applicants; and

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

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 that by means of the determination of the export prices, the Commission infringed Articles 2(8), 2(9), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that by means of its price effects, injury and causation determinations, the Commission infringed Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 4(1), 5(4) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/25

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — holyGhost v EUIPO — CBM (holyGhost)

(Case T-439/16)

(2016/C 350/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: holyGhost GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Wiedemann and S. Engbrink, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘holyGhost’ — Application for registration No 11 757 853

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2016 in Case R 2867/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

in the alternative, annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ in so far as it orders that the repayment of the overpaid contribution in connection with the setting of the contribution for the Single Resolution Fund should occur in 2017;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Schniga v CPVO (Gala Schnico)

(Case T-445/16)

(2016/C 364/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Community plant variety right at issue: Gala Schnico — Community plant variety right application No 2009/1807

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 22 April 2016 in Case A005/2014.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order CPVO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

as a consequence, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12 EC (now Article 18 TFEU), Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6(3) TEU, Article 1(2) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, and Article 1d(1) and (6), the second paragraph of Article 27, and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations. — The applicant argues in that regard that the linguistic restriction imposed by the Commission is discriminatory because the legislative provisions cited above prohibit a body from imposing on EU citizens or officials of the institutions linguistic restrictions which are not generally and objectively provided for under the institutions’ rules of procedure as referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 1/58 and which have not yet been adopted; they also prohibit a body from introducing such limitations unless they are justified by a specific substantiated interest of the service.
—

consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 383/17

Action brought on 11 August 2016 — Mr. Kebab v EUIPO — Mister Kebap (Mr. KEBAB)

(Case T-448/16)

(2016/C 383/23)

Language in which the application was lodged: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Mr. Kebab s.r.o. (Košice-Západ, Slovakia) (represented by: L. Vojčík, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mister Kebap, SL (Finestrat, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Mr. KEBAB’ — Application for registration No 12 551 222

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 May 2016 in Case R 987/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— amend the contested decision so that the opposition of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of 20 November 2014, No B 002370594, to the application for registration of the composite European Union trade mark ‘Mr. KEBAB’ is dismissed in its entirety;

— order EUIPO and possibly the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and its classification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation 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 and Article 107 TFUE.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16), and of the second paragraph of Article 54(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging defects affecting the internal legality of the contested acts. This plea is divided into nine parts. — First part, according to which the events complained of in support of the contested acts did not occur. — Second part, according to which the adoption of the contested acts infringed the rules and general principles of law applicable to establishing proof and the burden of proof. — Third part, according to which the Secretary General’s decision to recover the sum overpaid infringed the principle of proportionality. The amount claimed is furthermore not justified by either detail or a method of calculation. — Fourth part, according to which the contested acts prejudice the political rights of the local assistants of MEPs. — Fifth part, according to which the contested acts are vitiated by misuse of power, in that the Secretary General assumed compulsion powers of a financial nature which he does not possess for the purpose of restricting a Member’s means of acting, whose ideals and the political agenda it is of undeniable public knowledge he does not share. — Sixth part, according to which the contested acts are discriminatory and that these presuppose the intention of causing political damage to the applicant; thus there is a fumus persecutionis. — Seventh part, according to which the contested acts prejudice the independence of the applicant in her capacity as MEP. — Eighth part, according to which the contested acts violate the principle of ‘electa una via’ and raise question of the impartiality of OLAF which only conducts its investigation by seeking evidence against the party concerned where that party is a French MEP from the Front National’s list. — Ninth part, according to which the contested acts amount to an infringement of the general legal principle that ‘civil proceedings must await the outcome of criminal proceedings’ in that the proceedings for recovery of overpayment ought to be suspended until the outcome of the other proceedings, in particular the French proceedings, and an infringement of the principle non bis in idem.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/30

Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Ciarko spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością v EUIPO — Maan (cooker hood)

(Case T-684/16)

(2016/C 410/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Ciarko spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością sp.k. (Sanok, Poland) (represented by: M. Żabińska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maan sp. z o.o. (Grójec, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: European Union design No 1 775 792-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2016 in Case R 1212/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Articles 25(1)(b), 4(1) and 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/53

Action brought on 1 September 2016 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T-629/16)

(2016/C 402/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adidas (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: position mark (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe) — EU trade mark No 8 398 141

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2016 in Case R 597/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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