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

Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Ionfarma v EUIPO — LG Electronics (AION)

(Case T-465/21)

(2021/C 382/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ionfarma, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea)

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: Application for European Union word mark AION — Application for registration No 17 892 367

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2021 in Case R 2223/2020–4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— revoke the contested decision and reject the European Union trademark Noo17 892 367 AION for all goods;

— order EUIPO and, in case LG Electronics decides to intervene in the present proceedings, LG Electronics to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 July 2021 — YAplus DBA Yoga Alliance v EUIPO — Vidyanand (YOGA ALLIANCE INDIA INTERNATIONAL)

(Case T-443/21)

(2021/C 368/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: YAplus DBA Yoga Alliance (Arlington, Virginia, United States) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swami Vidyanand (Villupuram, India)

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 figurative mark YOGA ALLIANCE INDIA INTERNATIONAL — International registration designating the European Union No 1 415 321

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 May 2021 in Case R 1062/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
First plea in law, concerning the application for compensation, alleging incorrect execution by the Commission of the judgment of 21 September 2017, Ferriera Valsabbia and Others v Commission (C-86/15 P and C-87/15 P, EU:C:2017:717) contrary to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

In this regard, the applicant claims that the Commission has not paid the entire amount of default interest on the penalty repaid following the judgment.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (TOGETHER. FORWARD.)

(Case T-500/21)

(2021/C 391/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark TOGETHER. FORWARD. — Application for registration No 18 288 035

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2nd June 2021 in Case R 417/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and consequently paragraph 2 of said article 7 by erroneously assessing the perception of the relevant consumers;
Action brought on 10 August 2021 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-489/21)

(2021/C 412/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 10 June 2021 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (Ex NN 36/2010, Ex CP 163/2009) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla La Mancha);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Spain’s right to be heard under Article 41(2) of the Charter, (1) and infringement of Article 4(4) read in conjunction with Article 6 of Regulation 2015/1589, (2) in that the burden of proof concerning selectivity was transferred to the Kingdom of Spain.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in that the European Commission exceeded its powers in the implementation of the judgment of 20 December 2017, C-70/16 P, and infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations and, in particular, the principle of ‘reformatio in peius’ and Article 47 of the Charter.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration laid down in Article 41 of the Charter, on account of the undue delay of three years and six months in fulfilling the obligation, set out in the judgment, to state reasons concerning the selectivity of the measure at issue.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the Commission carried out an unwarranted examination of selectivity, reversing the burden of proof.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589, in that the measure was classified as an ‘aid scheme’.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that unclear and contradictory quantification criteria were introduced with regard to the definition of ‘advantage’ contained in the decision.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in that there was no advantage for the beneficiaries identified, and error of assessment in the determination of the beneficiary.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that an error of assessment was committed in the examination of compatibility.

(1) The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2016 C 202/02, p. 389).

(2) Council Regulation (EU) 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 3 August 2021 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2 CYPRUS CASINOS)

(Case T-460/21)

(2021/C 412/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MCO (IP) Holdings Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: A. Roughton, Barrister-at-law)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C8 (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark C2 CYPRUS CASINOS — Application for registration No 17 867 693

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2021 in Case R 908/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and allow the mark (EUIPO application number 017867693) to proceed to registration;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs;

— order C8 to bear its own costs;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by MCO(IP) Holdings Limited.

Pleas in law

— misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect rejection of the sign’s registration;

— misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Appeal;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 August 2021– Zeta farmaceutici v EUIPO — Specchiasol (EUPHYTOS)

(Case T-515/21)

(2021/C 422/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Zeta farmaceutici SpA (Vicenza, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Specchiasol Srl (Bussolengo, 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 word mark EUPHYTOS — European Union trade mark No 6 316 541

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 June in Case R 2094/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision and find and declare the contested mark, namely European Union trade mark No 6 316 541, invalid;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal, ordering it to comply with the findings of the Court when issuing its new decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 August 2021 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ad pepper the e-advertising network)

(Case T-521/21)

(2021/C 422/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: 6Minutes Media GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: N. Marquard and P. Koch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ad pepper media International NV (Nuremberg, 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: EU figurative mark ad pepper the e-advertising network in grey and red — EU trade mark No 9 680 737

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 June 2021 in Case R 1621/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the application for revocation of EU trade mark No 9 680 737 and revoke EU trade mark No 9 680 737 in its entirety;

— order the defendant and — in the event of formal intervention — also the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18(1)(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-545/21)

(2021/C 431/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design No 1 431 829-0004

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2021 in Case R 1011/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision to: — allow the applicant’s appeal, — dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicant’s application ICD 10 306 to declare the contested design invalid, — order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;

— order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s fees and costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155);

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172);

— Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 September 2021 — Société Elmar Wolf v EUIPO — Fuxtec (Representation of a fox’s head)

(Case T-596/21)

(2021/C 462/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Société Elmar Wolf (Wissembourg, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fuxtec GmbH (Herrenberg, 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 a figurative mark (Representation of a fox’s head) — International registration designating the European Union No 1 339 239

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 July 2021 in Case R 2834/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it states that the mark applied for is similar to the earlier mark;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— order the company Fuxtec GmbH to pay the costs occasioned by its intervention, if such intervention has taken place.

Plea in law

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

and order the Commission, pursuant to Article 13 of Council Regulation 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down procedural rules, to take interim measures against France with a view to putting an end to the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants by ordering it to suspend the following normative decisions, which create an unfair distortion of competition by means of State aid, which creates a selective advantage affecting competition and intra-EU trade within the EU single market: — the deliberations of 12 and 14 December 2019 of the General and Federal Assemblies of the Professional Football League and the deliberation of 10 December 2020 of the General Assembly of the Professional Football League taken on behalf of the French Football Federation in the exercise of its public authority; — the decision of 25 June 2021 by which the Professional Clubs Control Commission of the National Management Control Directorate of the Professional Football League did not take any administrative measures against PSG; — the decision of the Professional Football League — not published — by which it approved the contract signed between Mr. Lionel Messi and Paris Saint-Germain.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1st October 2021 — Eurol v EUIPO — Pernsteiner (eurol LUBRICANTS)

(Case T-636/21)

(2021/C 471/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eurol BV (Nijverdal, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Driessen and G. van Roeyen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: August Wolfgang Pernsteiner (Feldkirchen an der Donau, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark eurol LUBRICANTS — International registration designating the European Union No 1 219 171

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2021 in Case R 2403/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order August Wolfgang Pernsteiner and EUIPO to bear the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in connection with Articles 8(2)(ii), 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Article 16(6) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 and Article 18(2) in connection with Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 10(2), (3) and (4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 18(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 64(2) and (3) in conjunction with Article 47(2) and (3) and Article 8(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 19 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Neratax v EUIPO — Piraeus Bank and Others (ELLO ERMOL, Ello creamy, ELLO, MORFAT Creamy and MORFAT)

(Case T-528/21)

(2021/C 462/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Neratax LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: V. Katsavos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Piraeus Bank SA (Athens, Greece), National Bank of Greece (Athens), Eurobank Ergasias SA (Athens)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade marks at issue: European Union word marks ELLO, MORFAT and European Union figurative marks ELLO ERMOL, Ello Creamy, MORFAT Creamy — European Union trade marks Nos 12 549 499 (ELLO), 12 549 821 (MORFAT), 14 715 783 (ELLO ERMOL), 14 722 243 (Ello creamy), 14 715 726 (MORFAT Creamy)

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decisions: Decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2021 in Cases R 1295/2020-4, R 1296/2020-4, R 1298/2020-4, R 1299/2020-4, R 1302/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— legally cancel, revoke and annul the contested decisions;

— for the rightful ownership of the trademarks of the application to be upheld and recognized as the applicant’s intellectual property;

— order the opposing parties to pay the costs incurred in the course of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 101 to 106 TFEU;

— Infringement of Articles 19 to 29 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 September 2021 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Heinze (K K WATER)

(Case T-610/21)

(2021/C 481/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arne-Patrik Heinze (Hamburg, 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 K K WATER — Application for registration No 18 092 777

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2021 in Case R 2327/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office’s Second Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 September 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-588/21)

(2021/C 471/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain), Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design No 1 431 829-0005

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2021 in Case R 1008/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision to: — allow the applicant’s appeal, — dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicants’ applications to declare the contested design invalid, — order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;

— order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s fees and costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155);

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172);

— Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Action brought on 15 October 2021 — Troy Chemical Company v Commission

(Case T-662/21)

(2021/C 490/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Troy Chemical Company BV (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Abrahams, Ł. Gorywoda and Z. Romata, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision C (2021) 5968 final of 5 August 2021 partially refusing access to documents requested by the applicant under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), in its entirety;

— grand the request for an expedited procedure under Art. 151 and 152 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;

— take such other or further measure as justice may require;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the second indent of Article 4 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — which is an infringement of both ‘an essential procedural requirement’ and a ‘rule of law’. It is alleged that the facts of the present case do not justify the exemptions claimed by the defendant for refusal to disclose redacted sections of the requested documents and, in any event, the overriding public interest in transparency and openness of the legislative process favors the full disclosure of the documents request of the applicant.

(1) 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 2001 L 145, p. 43-48).