ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-324/18: Action brought on 28 May 2018 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a golden bottle)

Action brought on 28 May 2018 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a golden bottle)

(Case T-324/18)

Parties

Applicant: Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl (Trebaseleghe, Italy) (represented by: L. Giove, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sandro Bottega (Colle Umberto, Italy)

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 three-dimensional mark (Shape of a golden bottle) – European Union trade mark No 11 531 381

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 in Case R 1036/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Incorrect assessment of the ground for refusal under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Case T-339/18: Action brought on 30 May 2018 — Enterprise Holdings v EUIPO (E PLUS)

Action brought on 30 May 2018 — Enterprise Holdings v EUIPO (E PLUS)

(Case T-339/18)

Parties

Applicant: Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (Saint Louis, Missouri, États-Unis) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark E PLUS — Application for registration No 16 377 079

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2018 in Case R 2141/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— accept the Application for publication;

— order EUIPO to bear its own and pay the Applicant’s costs.

Plea in law
Case T-364/18: Action brought on 11 June 2018 — Arçelik v EUIPO (MicroGarden)

Action brought on 11 June 2018 — Arçelik v EUIPO (MicroGarden)

(Case T-364/18)

Parties

Applicant: Arçelik AS (Istanbul, Turquie) (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark MicroGarden — Application for registration No 16 971 988

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 April 2018 in Case R 163/2018-2

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 Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Case T-392/18: Action brought on 28 June 2018 — Innocenti v EUIPO — Gemelli (Innocenti)

Action brought on 28 June 2018 — Innocenti v EUIPO — Gemelli (Innocenti)

(Case T-392/18)

Parties

Applicant: Innocenti SA (Lugano, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Ferretti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Filippo Gemelli (Turin, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Innocenti’ – Application for registration No 7 502 181

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2018 in Case R 2336/2010-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Alter Decision No 2336/2010-5 of the Fifth Board of Appeal by annulling it and reject Filippo Gemelli’s opposition to mark 007502181.

Pleas in law

— Failure to comply with the time limit for submission of documentary evidence of the decision of the Tribunale di Torino (District Court, Turin, Italy) revoking the earlier mark on the ground of non-use;
First plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded its competence in levying taxes in the area of air safety

The applicant puts forward that ‘fees’ for airplanes in the category of 2000 — 5700 kg would elevate to be taxes, due to the ‘dramatic jump’ of the ‘flat fee’ of more than 1700 percent. In this particular case, the defendant’s service for the citizen in return for the ‘fees’ would be so negligible (minimal), that one could not consider the defendant’s service as a return, but it would constitute taxation.

However, the Commission would have no competence to levy taxes in the field of air safety. Therefore, Commission Regulation (EU) No 319/2014 prescribing a flat fee in the amount of EUR 263800 for certification tasks for airplanes such as the applicant’s, which is allegedly largely unrelated to the actual tasks performed by the defendant and, thus, would not constitute consideration for the defendant’s services rendered, would violate the principle of conferral.
—

annul the defendant’s decision of 12 April 2018 concerning the calculation of the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2018 (SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03) in so far as the decision concerns the applicant;
Case T-343/18: Action brought on 03 June 2018 — Tokin Corporation/Commission

Action brought on 03 June 2018 — Tokin Corporation/Commission

(Case T-343/18)

Parties

Applicant: Tokin Corporation (Sendai City, Japan) (represented by: C. Thomas, T. Yuen and M. Perez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 2(f) of Commission Decision C(2018) 1768 of 21 March 2018 in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 5036000 on TOKIN Corporation, jointly and severally with NEC Corporation;

— set the amount of the fine imposed on TOKIN Corporation in Article 2(f) of that decision, jointly and severally with NEC Corporation, at a lower figure;

— annul Article 2(g) of that decision in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 8814000 on TOKIN Corporation;

— set the amount of the fine imposed on TOKIN Corporation in Article 2(g) of that decision at a lower figure; and

— order the Commission to pay the Applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 ( 1 ) and the principle of equal treatment by relying on 2011/12 as the reference period for the determination of its value of sales.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 and the principle of personal liability by applying a reduction for mitigating circumstances to the basic amount of the fine, instead of reducing the gravity percentage used to calculate the basic amount, in relation to an aspect of the infringement for which the applicant was held liable.

( 1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — Objectif Pharma (W S wellpharma shop)

(Case T-403/18)

(2018/C 301/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Pharmadom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: M.-P. Dauquaire, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Objectif Pharma (Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France)

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 containing the word element ‘W S wellpharma shop’ — Application for registration No 14 494 751

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2018 in Case R 1448/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— refuse the EU trade mark application for all the goods and services covered;

— order EUIPO, and Objectif Pharma if it decides to intervene in the proceedings, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 July 2018 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO — Rubio Snacks (Tia Rosa)

(Case T-464/18)

(2018/C 328/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rubio Snacks, SL (Bullas, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Tia Rosa — Application for registration No 14 442 883

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2018 in Case R 2739/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as the latter confirmed the opposition 002628793 upheld against European Union figurative mark No 14 442 883 Tia Rosa in relation to the following goods in Class 30: Cereal preparations; Tortillas; Taco chips; Tacos; Tacos; Crackers; Crackers flavoured with spices; Cereal bars; High-protein cereal bars; Cereals; Bread; Bread; Unleavened bread; Breadcrumbs; Bread rolls; Wholemeal bread; Multigrain bread; Rusks; Farinaceous foods; Snack food products consisting of cereal products; Snack food products made from maize flour; Ready to eat savory snack foods made from maize meal formed by extrusion; Snack foods made from corn; Snack foods made from wheat; Sesame snacks; Crisps made from cereals; Puffed corn snacks; Popcorn; Flavoured popcorn; The aforesaid goods expressly not including any kind of products based on potato.

— confirm the registration of European Union trade mark No 14 442 883 Tia Rosa for all the goods in respect of which protection is claimed;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings before EUIPO and the General Court.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Pareto Trading v EUIPO — Bikor and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics (BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH)

(Case T-438/18)

(2018/C 319/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pareto Trading Co., Inc. (Carlstadt, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, C. Martínez-Tercero Molina, V. Balaguer Fuentes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bikor Elżbieta Korbut (Gdańsk, Poland) and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics Małgorzata Wedekind (Gdańsk)

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: Application for European Union word mark BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH — European Union trade mark No 9 561 788

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2018 in Case R 1826/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare that the costs in this proceedings shall be borne by the Defendant, including all the costs which the Applicant has incurred before both the Cancellation Division and the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO that have resulted in the present Application.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 August 2018 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (Happy Moreno choco)

(Case T-498/18)

(2018/C 352/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZPC Flis sp.j. (Radziejowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

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 Happy Moreno choco — Application for registration No 15 028 087

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 in Case R 1464/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the EUIPO for reconsideration; or

— alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the EUTMA 015028087 ‘Happy Moreno choco’ for all goods in classes 30 and 35 and the trademark shall be registered;

— award the costs in the Applicant’s favour.

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 25 July 2018 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)

(Case T-465/18)

(2018/C 341/35)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Argyriadis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration in the European Union of the word mark ‘EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology’ — Application for registration No 16 180 879

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2018 in Case R 1358/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— hold this action to be admissible;

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold in its entirety the application No 16 180 879 for trade mark registration in the European Union with respect to all the claimed goods;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes the first, second and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as it refused to apply the exceptions which were nevertheless invoked by the applicant. This plea is divided into three parts: — first part, alleging that the Commission infringes the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as it deliberately refused to apply the general presumption of confidentiality applicable to documents; — second part, alleging that the Commission infringes the second indent of Article 4(20 of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as it refused to take into consideration the interference with judicial procedures which the communication of the documents effected; — third part, alleging that the Commission infringes the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 339 TFEU, in so far as it failed to take into consideration the applicant’s commercial, financial and strategic interests.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 August 2018 — Zhadanov v EUIPO (Scanner Pro)

(Case T-492/18)

(2018/C 352/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Igor Zhadanov (Odessa, Ukraine) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Scanner Pro — Application for registration No 16 257 727

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2018 in Case R 1812/2017-2.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— register European Union Trade Mark Application 016257727 for goods in classes 9 and 42;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 24 August 2018 — France v Commission

(Case T-507/18)

(2018/C 392/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, A.-L. Desjonquères, S. Horrenberger and A. Alidière, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it applies a lump-sum correction of 5 %, equal to EUR 945 435,39, concerning ‘Other Direct Aid — POSEI’, on the basis of ‘Inaccurate accounting for certain consignments of bananas’ for the financial years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging an error of law committed by the Commission in the conformity clearance procedure concerning support for bananas, in that it misinterpreted the notion of ‘marketing’ of green bananas eligible for support from the Programme of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI) applicable to Guadeloupe and Martinique.

First, the applicant claims that the Commission’s interpretation of that notion misconstrued the scope of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1333/2011 of 19 December 2011 laying down marketing standards for bananas, rules on the verification of compliance with those marketing standards and requirements for notifications in the banana sector (OJ 2011, L 336, p. 23).

Secondly, it submits that the Commission’s interpretation of that notion is based on a misapplication of Article 76 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013, L 347, p. 671).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 August 2018 — Puma v EUIPO — Destilerias MG (MG PUMA)

(Case T-500/18)

(2018/C 373/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. Trieb and M. Schunke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Destilerias MG SL (Vilanova i la Geltru, 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 trade mark MG PUMA — Application for registration No 15 108 848

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2018 in Case R 2019/2017-2.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 September 2018 — Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO — Dalian Wanda Group Co. (wanda films)

(Case T-542/18)

(2018/C 399/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Wanda Films, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) and Wanda Visión, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón) (represented by: C. Planas Silva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd (Dalian, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Wanda Films, SL

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark wanda films — Application for registration No 13 902 994

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2018 in Case R 829/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— admit the present application, the arguments and documents (including the ones presented with this application and the ones presented by the applicant during the opposition and appeal proceedings);

— override the contested decision;

— issue a decision that admits the registration of the figurative trademark defended by the applicant with the present application.

Plea in law
2.

Infringement of the Guidelines for the renewal of temporary agent contracts (‘the Guidelines’), the principle of sound administration, the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment and the principle that the ending of the contract of a temporary agent under Article 2(a) or 2(f) CEOS requires a justifying ground (a ‘iusta causa’) and infringement of Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Council Directive 1999/70/EC, (1) the Framework Agreement (in particular Articles 1(b) and 5.1 thereof) and Article 4 of ILO Convention 158 The applicant takes the view that it should no longer have been permissible to exercise the ‘Termination Clause’ in her contract following the adoption of the Guidelines, as, once they have been introduced, they represent the applicable procedural methods of EUIPO with regard to the renewal of temporary agent contracts, and therefore prohibit the exercise of the ‘Termination Clause’. Further, the applicant claims that a justifying ground for the termination of the contract must correspond to the budgetary nature of the relevant position.