ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/21

Action brought on 22 December 2017 — achtung! v EUIPO (achtung!)

(Case T-832/17)

(2018/C 063/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: achtung! GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: G.J. Seelig and D. Bischof, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘achtung!’ — International registration No 1 297 443

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2017 in Case R 490/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the defendant of 23 October 2017 (Case R 490/2017-4);

— amend the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the defendant of 23 October 2017 (Case R 490/2017-4) in such a way that international registration No 1 297 443 ‘achtung!’ (word/figure) is protected for the European Union;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

In support of the action, the applicant alleges an infringement pursuant to Article 72(2) of Regulation 2017/1001. The defendant, it submits, erred in law in assessing the distinctive character of the trade mark under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 and infringed the principles of equal treatment and sound administration.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error consisting in incorrect legal assessment and manifestly incorrect assessment of the facts. — The European Commission assessed the facts incorrectly in reaching the conclusion that the anti-competitive conduct of which the applicant was accused (as far as the Czech Republic was concerned) had been dealt with by the national economic competition authority in the Czech Republic, and made an incorrect legal assessment of the case to the effect that the conditions for the application of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 were satisfied (as far as the Czech Republic was concerned). — The European Commission did not examine thoroughly all the factual and legal circumstances communicated to it by the applicant, and for that reason assessed the facts incorrectly in reaching the conclusion that the applicant’s written observations did not lead to a different evaluation of the complaint and that the probability that the occurrence of an infringement of Article 101 TFEU would be ascertained appeared to be low, and made an incorrect legal assessment of the case to the effect that the conditions for the application of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 were satisfied.
—

The applicant claims in this respect that the objective pursued by the Council by means of the selection procedure was to identify the best offer for the relocation of the seat of the EMA in the light of pre-established selection criteria. By contrast, choosing the new seat of the EMA by drawing lots without any preliminary investigations being carried out is at variance with the objective, established while the procedural rules were being set, of selecting the best offer through a transparent decision-making process on the basis of technical assessments and specific predetermined criteria, and made it impossible for the lack of equivalence between the two applications of Milan and Amsterdam to be verified.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/46

Action brought on 8 January 2018 — inforsacom Informationssysteme v EUIPO (Business and technology working as one)

(Case T-7/18)

(2018/C 072/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: inforsacom Informationssysteme GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Business and technology working as one’ –Application for registration No 15 272 586

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2017 in Case R 808/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation 2017/1001;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/41

Action brought on 2 February 2018 — Mahr v EUIPO — Especialidades Vira (Xocolat)

(Case T-58/18)

(2018/C 112/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ramona Mahr (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: T. Rohracher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Especialidades Vira, SL (Martorell, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Xocolat’ — Application for registration No 14 335 574

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 in Case R 541/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/53

Action brought on 29 January 2018 — Hangzhou Lezoo traveling equipment v EUIPO — Promotional Traders (GREEN HERMIT)

(Case T-60/18)

(2018/C 104/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hangzhou Lezoo traveling equipment Co. Ltd (Hangzhou, China) (represented by: D. Burghardt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Promotional Traders Pty Ltd (Subiaco, Australia)

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 ‘GREEN HERMIT’ — EU trade mark No 11 835 964

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 857/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— remit the case to the Fourth Board of Appeal;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) Regulation No 2017/1001;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/27

Action brought on 13 February 2018 — Husky CZ v EUIPO — Husky of Tostock (HUSKY)

(Case T-82/18)

(2018/C 134/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Husky CZ s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Husky of Tostock Ltd (Woodbridge, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark HUSKY in the colours of blue, black and white — Application for registration No 4 442 431

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2018 in Case R 812/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/45

Action brought on 7 February 2018 — Sonova Holding v EUIPO (HEAR THE WORLD)

(Case T-70/18)

(2018/C 112/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sonova Holding AG (Stäfa, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Pansch and A. Sabellek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘HEAR THE WORLD’ — Application for registration No 15 274 426

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2017 in Case R 1645/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/22

Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Kleani v Court of Justice

(Case T-51/18)

(2018/C 134/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Efterpi Kleani (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Tassi, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 23 November 2017 (reference 20172046) rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in respect of the freelance translator contract notice 2017/S 002-001564 for the Greek language.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant maintains that the contested decision was not accompanied by either a determinate set of criteria establishing the quality level of translations requested in the tender procedure or any kind of a correction sheet or a comparative report which might substantiate why, in the defendant’s view, the test translation submitted by the applicant failed to attain the minimum benchmark required. The applicant argues, in that regard, that the contested decision was not properly reasoned and that the selection procedure lacked transparency.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/22

Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Tassi v Court of Justice

(Case T-50/18)

(2018/C 134/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Smaro Tassi (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: E. Kleani, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 23 November 2017 (reference 20173192) rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in respect of the freelance translator contract notice 2017/S 002-001564 for the Greek language.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant maintains that the contested decision was not accompanied by either a determinate set of criteria establishing the quality level of translations requested in the tender procedure or any kind of a correction sheet or a comparative report which might substantiate why, in the defendant’s view, the test translation submitted by the applicant failed to attain the minimum benchmark required. The applicant argues, in that regard, that the contested decision was not properly reasoned and that the selection procedure lacked transparency.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/65

Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Van Haren Schoenen v Commission

(Case T-126/18)

(2018/C 142/83)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Van Haren Schoenen BV (Waalwijk, Netherlands) (represented by: S. De Knop, B. Natens, A. Willems and M. Meulenbelt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare the application admissible;

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) TEU on account of absence of legal basis of the contested regulation and, in the alternative, infringement of the principle of institutional balance laid down in Article 13(2) TEU.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU for failure to take the necessary measures to implement the judgment of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International (C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74).

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1(1) and 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (1) and of the principle of legal certainty for imposing anti-dumping duties on goods that are in free circulation.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 in so far as the anti-dumping duties were imposed without a fresh assessment of the EU interest. According to the applicant, it was, in any event, manifestly incorrect to conclude that the Union had an interest in the anti-dumping duties being imposed.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (4) TFEU for adopting an act which goes further than is necessary to attain the objective being pursued.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/66

Action brought on 22 February 2018 — IQ Group Holdings Berhad v EUIPO — Krinner Innovation (Lumiqs)

(Case T-133/18)

(2018/C 142/85)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: IQ Group Holdings Berhad (Heckmondwike, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Carter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Krinner Innovation GmbH (Straßkirchen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of figurative mark Lumiqs — International registration designating the European Union No 1 220 053

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2017 in Case R 983/2017-1.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— allow the application to proceed to registration in respect of the contested goods as amended;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/55

Action brought on 5 March 2018 — Sona Nutrition v EUIPO — Solgar Holdings (SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA)

(Case T-155/18)

(2018/C 152/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sona Nutrition Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Solgar Holdings, Inc. (Ronkonkoma, 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 figurative mark in colours light green, light brown, beige, dark brown and golden brown, SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA — Application for registration No 13 781 315

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2017 in Case R 1323/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Solgar Holdings, Inc., if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
—

annul Article 9 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/380 of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of its Annex A, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;
—

annul Article 8 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of 19 December 2017, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/37

Action brought on 7 March 2018 — Scordis, Papapetrou & Co and Others v Council and Others

(Case T-179/18)

(2018/C 166/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Scordis, Papapetrou & Co LLC (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 5 others (represented by: A. Markides, lawyer, A. Robertson, QC, and G. Rothschild, barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup (represented by the Council of the European Union) and European Union (represented by the European Commission)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court, as compensation for damage suffered as a result of Eurogroup decisions concerning the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd (‘Laiki Bank’), the bail-in of Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited (‘Bank of Cyprus’) and the sale of assets and business of the said banks in Greece, and/or as a result of the provision of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Laiki Bank with the consent of the European Central Bank and the subsequent transfer at the direction of the European Central Bank of the relevant liability to Bank of Cyprus;

or in the alternative:

— declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants;

and in any event:

— order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-147/18, APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others.
—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 10 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/46

Action brought on 22 March 2018 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Motor vehicles)

(Case T-209/18)

(2018/C 166/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Autec AG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 1230593-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2018 in Case R 945/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the contested Community design No 1230593-0001.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that the applicant, in his role as General Commander of the Bolivarian National Guard, is responsible for serious human rights violations allegedly committed by the Bolivarian National Guard and undermined the rule of law in Venezuela.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment of the information which, when properly assessed, could not support the defendant’s conclusion, and because it failed to take into consideration all relevant information related to pending studies. The defendant also manifestly erred in its assessment because it failed to establish that (a) there is scientific evidence of probable serious effects due to its endocrine disrupting properties for the environment, and that (b) such evidence would give rise to an equivalent level of concern to substances listed in points (a) to (e) of Article 57 of REACH.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the earlier decision of the Court of Auditors determining the applicant’s rights, since any administrative act adopted by an institution enjoys a presumption of legality and since, in the present case, the earlier decision of the Court of Auditors gave right to legitimate expectations on the part of the applicant that he would receive the expatriation allowance for as long as he continued to be posted to Luxembourg.
Case T-279/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Alliance Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — AxiCorp (AXICORP ALLIANCE)

Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Alliance Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — AxiCorp (AXICORP ALLIANCE)

(Case T-279/18)

Parties

Applicant: Alliance Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Wiltshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AxiCorp GmbH (Friedrichsdorf/Ts, Germany)

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 mark AXICORP ALLIANCE — International registration designating the European Union No 1 072 913

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2018 in Case R 1473/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— in the alternative, the contested decision of the Fifth Board be altered to state that the opposition should be remitted to the Opposition Division for it to reconsider the opposition pursuant to Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) in addition to reconsidering the opposition pursuant to Article 8(4);

— order EUIPO to pay to the Applicant, the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this Application and the costs before the Board. In the alternative, if the other party before the Board intervenes, then the Defendant and Intervener jointly and severally pay to the Applicant, the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this Application and the costs before the Board.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
Case T-268/18: Action brought on 27 April 2018 — Sandrone v EUIPO — J. Garcia Carrion (Luciano Sandrone)

Action brought on 27 April 2018 — Sandrone v EUIPO — J. Garcia Carrion (Luciano Sandrone)

(Case T-268/18)

Parties

Applicant: Luciano Sandrone (Barolo, Italy) (represented by: A. Borra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: J. Garcia Carrion, SA (Jumilla, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Luciano Sandrone’ — Application for registration No 14 416 598

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2018 in Case R 1207/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Lack of evidence of genuine use of the earlier mark in accordance with Article 42 (2) and (3) of Regulation No 2017/1001.