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

Action brought on 23 March 2020 — Henry Cotton’s Brand Management Company v EUIPO — Industries Sportswear Company (Henry Cotton’s)

(Case T-173/20)

(2020/C 191/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Henry Cotton’s Brand Management Company Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, C. Eckhartt and P. Böhner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Industries Sportswear Company SRL (Venice, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Henry Cotton’s — European Union trade mark No 821 769 and No 2 580 728

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation of register entry

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2020 in Joined Cases R 254/2019-2 and R 255/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 103(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 April 2020 — Residencial Palladium v EUIPO — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts (PALLADIUM HOTELS & RESORTS)

(Case T-207/20)

(2020/C 201/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Residencial Palladium, SL (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL (Ibiza)

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: Figurative mark PALLADIUM HOTELS & RESORTS — European Union trade mark No 2 915 304

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2020 in Case R 231/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul and declare inapplicable the contested decision and order EUIPO to proceed with the application for a declaration of invalidity brought by Residencial Palladium;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 60(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 April 2020 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Ioulia and Irene Tseti Pharmaceutial Laboratories (HYAL)

(Case T-215/20)

(2020/C 201/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ioulia and Irene Tseti Pharmaceutial Laboratories SA (Athens, Greece)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark HYAL — European Union trade mark No 2 430 221

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 January 2020 in Case R 613/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs; in the alternative, if the other party before the Board of Appeal intervenes, order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 165(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Articles 32(f) and 39(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 59(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 May 2020 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)

(Case T-263/20)

(2020/C 215/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Suisse) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genova, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services — European Union trade mark No 12 313 797

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 in Case R 1545/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to render a new decision refusing the declaration of invalidity filed against the EU trade mark No 12 313 797, also for classes 11 and 40;

— order EUIPO and the intervener, should the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal appear before the Court, to pay its own costs and bear the fees and costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 May 2020 — MCM Products v EUIPO — The Nomad Company (NOMAD)

(Case T-285/20)

(2020/C 222/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: MCM Products AG (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Eichhammer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Nomad Company BV (Zevenaar, Netherlands)

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 ‘NOMAD’ — EU trade mark No 1 742 089

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2020 in Case R 854/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the registered goods in Class 18;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 May 2020 — Steinel v EUIPO (GluePro)

(Case T-256/20)

(2020/C 215/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Steinel GmbH (Herzebrock-Clarholz, Germany) (represented by: M. Breuer and K. Freudenstei, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark GluePro — Application No 18 029 161

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2020 in Case R 2516/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 May 2020 — Comercializadora Eloro v EUIPO — Zumex Group (JUMEX)

(Case T-310/20)

(2020/C 240/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Comercializadora Eloro (Ecatepec, Mexico) (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero, P. Merino Baylos and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zumex Group, SA (Moncada, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark JUMEX — Application for registration No 12 329 181

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 in Case R 534/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and order the opponent to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
2.

Second plea, alleging error of assessment of the facts of the case and misuse of power. The applicant claims that, taking into account the evidence submitted to it, the Council could only have found that there was not a sufficient legal basis for bringing criminal proceedings. The applicant also noted a number of infringements of his fundamental rights, from which the Council failed to draw any conclusions.
1.

First plea in law, alleging the misinterpretation of Article 20(3) of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations and the breach of the principle of continuity of service.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 May 2020 — Nosio v EUIPO — Tros del Beto (ACCUSÌ)

(Case T-300/20)

(2020/C 247/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer, G. Rubino, A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tros del Beto, SLU (Marçà, 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 word mark ACCUSÌ — Application for registration No 16 014 921

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2020 in Case R 871/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the signs dissimilar;

— admit the opposed application to registration.

Plea in law
Action brought on 4 May 2020 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-255/20)

(2020/C 247/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor, and J. Kenny, Barrister-at-law)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the implied decision of the European Commission dated 26 February 2020 in case GESTDEM No 2019/6819 refusing the applicant’s request for access to documents in part;

— rule on the costs and order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs as well as order any intervening parties to carry their own 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 that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment and errors of law resulting in the misapplication of the protection of the decision-making process exception (second subparagraph of Article 4(3) Regulation No 1049/2001) (1) and failed to state reasons (Article 296 TFEU) because: — there is no decision-making process that would be seriously undermined by the partial disclosure of section 4 of the minutes of the 79th Meeting of the ‘Technical Committee — Motor Vehicles’, held in Brussels on 12 February 2019 (‘Document B’); — the Commission did not demonstrate that partial disclosure of section 4 of Document B would seriously undermine its decision-making process.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment and errors of law resulting in the misapplication of the overriding public interest test of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and failed to state reasons (Article 296 TFEU).

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law in relying on the Standard Rules of Procedure for Committees, which are inapplicable based on Article 277 TFEU.

(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).
Action brought on 15 May 2020 — Del Valle Ruiz and Others v SRB

(Case T-302/20)

(2020/C 247/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Antonio Del Valle Ruiz (Mexico City, Mexico) and 36 other applicants (represented by: P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruíz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul the Decision of the Single Resolution Board of 17 March 2020 (SRB/EES/2020/52) determining whether compensation needs to be granted to the shareholders and creditors of Banco Popular Español S.A.;

— order the defendant and any parties intervening in full or partial support of it to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 15(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (‘Regulation No 806/2014’). In that connection, the applicants submit that the former shareholders of Banco Popular should not have sustained greater losses in the resolution than those that they would have incurred in the case of an ordinary insolvency.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20(16) of Regulation No 806/2014. The applicants submit, in that regard, that the contested decision failed to assess whether the former shareholders of Banco Popular would have received better treatment in ordinary insolvency proceedings than in the resolution, since insolvency proceedings were equated with liquidation. Furthermore, the valuation was not carried out by an independent person.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), in so far as there was infringement of the right of the former shareholders of Banco Popular to be heard before the individual measure which would affect them adversely was taken.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 47 of the Charter. In that connection, the applicants allege infringement of the right of the former shareholders of Banco Popular to effective judicial protection, leaving them defenceless as a consequence.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 17 of the Charter and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in so far as the shareholders were deprived of their right to property without having received fair compensation for that loss.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52 of the Charter. It is submitted in that regard that the SRB deprived the shareholders of their right to property without complying with the legally established limits.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 May 2020 — EAB v EUIPO (RADIOSHUTTLE)

(Case T-341/20)

(2020/C 255/33)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: EAB AB (Smålandsstenar, Sweden) (represented by: J. Norderyd and C. Sundén, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU word mark RADIOSHUTTLE — Application No 179 709 13

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2020 in Case R 1428/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, and

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 June 2020 — Team Beverage v EUIPO — Zurich Deutscher Herold Lebensversicherung (Team Beverage)

(Case T-359/20)

(2020/C 255/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Team Beverage AG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, N. Willich und N. Achilles, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zurich Deutscher Herold Lebensversicherung AG (Bonn, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Team Beverage — Application for registration No 17 665 704

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2020 in Case R 2727/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 18 and 47 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 10 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;
—

annul the decision of 7 November 2019 of the appointing authority (AIPN), notified to the applicant through ARES system on that date, which rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, lodged on 17 July 2019, including the rejection of her request for a EUR 30 000 compensation;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 June 2020 — Lee v EUIPO (Table knives, forks and spoons)

(Case T-382/20)

(2020/C 271/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Keun Jig Lee (Paju-si, Republic of Korea) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and B. La Tella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Design: European Union design No 5 866 514-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2020 in Case R 2559/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirely;

— declare admissible the application for restitutio in integrum and grant it;;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the procedure.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 67(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 15.2 of the tender specifications, breach of the duty of care and thoroughness, infringement of the principles of equality, competition and transparency, and breach of Article 170(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1) (‘Regulation 2018/1046’). In that regard, the applicant submits that the Parliament should have awarded it the contract, since SPRL IMAGINA EU did not have sufficient economic and financial resources and could not therefore be selected.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of confidentiality of disciplinary proceedings and judicial investigations as well as an apparent infringement of the guarantees provided under Regulation (EU) No 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 July 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-465/20)

(2020/C 287/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F. Laprévote, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 10 June 2020 on State Aid SA.57369 (2020/N) COVID-19 — Portugal — Aid to TAP (1); and,

— order the European Commission to pay the costs. The applicant has also requested that its action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish that the aid falls within the material scope of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (R&R Guidelines). (2)

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the decision violates the principles of non-discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision violated the Commission’s duty to state reasons.

(1) European Commission Decision (EU) of 10 June 2020 on State Aid SA.57369 (2020/N) COVID-19 — Portugal — Aid to TAP (OJ 2020 C 228, p. 1)

(2) Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (OJ 2014, C 249, p. 1)