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

Action brought on 22 October 2018 — E.J. Papadopoulos v EUIPO — Europastry (fripan VIENNOISERIE CAPRICE Pur Beurre)

(Case T-628/18)

(2018/C 455/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viomichania mpiskoton kai eidon diatrofis E.J. Papadopoulos S.A. (Moschato-Tavros, Greece) (represented by: C. Chrysanthis, P.–V. Chardalia and A. Vasilogamvrou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Europastry, SA (Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark fripan VIENNOISERIE CAPRICE Pur Beurre — Application for registration No 13 125 265

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 August 2018 in Case R 493/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Europastry, SA, if it becomes intervener, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Geske v EUIPO (revolutionary air pulse technology)

(Case T-634/18)

(2019/C 4/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: André Geske (Lübbecke, Germany) (represented by: R. Albrecht, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: Application for EU word mark revolutionary air pulse technology — Application for registration No 17 025 231

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2018 in Case R 2721/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 November 2018 — Nissin Foods Holdings v EUIPO — The GB Foods (Soba JAPANESE FRIED NOODLES)

(Case T-663/18)

(2019/C 25/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nissin Foods Holdings Co. Ltd (Osaka, Japon) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, G. Messenger, Barrister, K. Gilbert and G. Lodge, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The GB Foods, SA (L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Soba JAPANESE FRIED NOODLES in colours red, black, grey and white — European Union trade mark No 9 377 904

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2018 in Case R 111/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of Applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 November 2018 — Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf v EUIPO — Brigade Electronics Group (CORNEREYE)

(Case T-688/18)

(2019/C 25/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf BV (Barneveld, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Pansch, S. Klopschinski and M. von Rospatt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brigade Electronics Group plc (Kent, United Kingdom)

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 CORNEREYE — Application for registration No 15 175 284

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2018 in Case R 1966/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error in the market definition regarding premium pay TV sports and film channels — In this regard, the applicant submits that, during the administrative procedure, it put forward that Ziggo Sport Totaal (‘ZST’) is ‘must-have’ for providers of retail TV, broadband and mobile services, and bundles including one or more of these services, in order to be able to compete on the retail market. Allegedly, this was confirmed by the market investigation conducted by the Commission. As a consequence, the two premium pay TV sports channels ZST and FOX Sports would not be substitutable. — The applicant further claims that the Commission nonetheless concluded that there was one market for the wholesale supply and acquisition of premium pay TV sports channels, comprising ZST and FOX Sports, and that no further market segmentation was needed. — Pursuant to the applicant, these errors in the market definition would affect the Commission’s further assessment and ultimately the conclusion to allow the merger.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 November 2018 — Executive Selling v EUIPO (EXECUTIVE SELLING)

(Case T-689/18)

(2019/C 25/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Executive Selling (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Bouchara and A. Maier, 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 sign EXECUTIVE SELLING — Application for registration No 1 343 783

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2018 in Case R 313/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

in the alternative, — rule that the Commission is liable to pay to the applicant the principal sum of EUR 3 238 000, of which: — EUR 2 848 000 correspond to refunds not received in connection with sales carried out between 19 July and 31 December 2013; — EUR 390 000 correspond to refunds relating to the loss of profit resulting from the failure to achieve 3 550 additional tonnes of sales to countries in the Middle East over the course of the same period; — order the Commission to pay the principal sum of EUR 3 238 000, — reassessed by applying compensatory interest, starting from the date of adoption of annulled Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 and continuing up to the date of delivery of the judgment in the present proceedings, on the basis of the annual rate of inflation determined, for the period in question, by Eurostat (Statistical Office of the European Union) in the Member State in which the applicant is established; — increased by default interest, to be calculated as from the date of delivery of the present judgment and until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its principal refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points; — rule that the principal sums and interest ordered to be paid by the Commission in the present case may be reduced by the amount which it may be ordered to pay in the context of Case T-437/18; — order the Commission to pay damages in respect of the non-material harm stemming from its double error in an amount calculated ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 November 2018 — Apera Capital Master v EUIPO — Altera Capital (APERA CAPITAL)

(Case T-699/18)

(2019/C 44/101)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apera Capital Master Ltd. (St Peter Port, Guernsey) (represented by: C. Schröder and A. von Alten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Altera Capital (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

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 APERA CAPITAL — Application for registration No 15 640 436

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2018 in Case R 1091/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— refer the case back to EUIPO for reconsideration;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 104(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 17 December 2018 — Darment v Commission

(Case T-739/18)

(2019/C 72/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Darment Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: C. Ginter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision to reduce the quota allocated to the applicant for the year 2019 for the placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market about which the applicant was informed by the letter of 16 October 2018 Ares(2018)5305174 and email of 12 December 2018;

— order the defendant to pay the 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 infringement of Regulation (EU) 517/2014 (1) from the defendant, by applying Article 25(2) strictly based on the data available in the registry set up under Article 17, even though a claim has been raised to correct the erroneous data in the registry.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment from the defendant for refusing to consider the applicant’s explanations regarding placement of quota for bulk import on the market.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, OJ L 150, 20.05.2014, p. 150.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Oakley v EUIPO — Xuebo Ye (Representation of a discontinuous ellipse)

(Case T-744/18)

(2019/C 65/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Oakley (Foothill Ranch, California, United States) (represented by: E. Ochoa Santamaría and I. Aparicio Martínez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Xuebo Ye (Wenzhou, China)

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 (Representation of a discontinuous ellipsis) — Application for registration No 13 088 191

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 October 2018 in Case R 692/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible, together with all the associated documents;

— rule that the evidence offered may be submitted;

— grant the application, annulling the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 December 2019 – WM v Commission

(Case T-411/18)

(2020/C 61/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WM (represented by: B. Entringer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the selection board of 27 September 2017 in open competition EPSO/AD/338/17 not to include the applicant on the reserve list;

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 April 2018 rejecting complaint No R/75/17;

— award the applicant an amount of no less than EUR 25 000 in damages;

— order the 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 that the Commission infringed the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment related to employment and occupation.

— The applicant refers to Article 5 of Directive 2000/78, (1) and to Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in support of his plea, and argues that the defendant failed to undertake the required individual assessment of the applicant’s needs.

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
—

rule that the defendant is under an obligation to compensate the applicants for the additional harm caused to them by the Commission’s adoption of a further two-year exception with Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1584, which, when organic pullets ‘are not available’, permits non-organic pullets to be brought into organic pullet livestock, without, having regard to the Commission’s duty to keep that exception ‘to a minimum’ under Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, (3) the use of the exception requiring that no hatcheries within a radius of up to 700 kilometres from the location of the pullet farm supply organic pullets, and that proof of the lack of availability of organic pullets is to be provided through the unsuccessful placement of orders with three hatcheries that are known suppliers of organic pullets and not through demand at hatcheries that are known for not supplying organic pullets.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached its international obligations, which amounts to a breach of the Treaty and it failed to provide sufficient motivation by finding that the Russian Federation was not complying with its World Trade Organisation obligations. The applicants submit that the defendant would have failed to take into account the Russian Federation’s accession to the World Trade Organisation as relevant to the change in the calculation of the dumping margin of the applicants. The defendant would be under the obligation to take into account the commitments made by the Russian Federation regarding the price of gas when investigating the interim review of the duties applicable to the import of ammonium nitrate. Since the defendant would have argued that the Russian Federation would not have been complying with its own Protocol of Accession, the defendant would have acted in breach of Article VI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and Article II of World Trade Organisation Antidumping Agreement. In failing to do so, it would have breached its international obligations, which amounts to a breach of the Treaty.
1.

First plea in law, alleging an incorrect interpretation of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations because the Commission was wrong to interpret that provision as meaning that a right to an expatriation allowance, acquired based on the place of origin and center of interests of an official in another Member State prior to his recruitment, is to be re-assessed in case the official concerned subsequently acquires the nationality of the Member State where he remains employed.
7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to self-determination, in that (i) the contested decision denies the national unity of the people of Western Sahara, which has the right to self-determination, by substituting the words ‘populations concerned’ for that people; (ii) in breach of the right of the people of Western Sahara freely to dispose of its natural resources, the contested decision concludes an international agreement which organises, without the consent of the people of Western Sahara, the export of its natural resources to the European Union, which resources are to be defined as being of Moroccan origin; and (iii) in breach of the separate and distinct status of the territory of Western Sahara, the contested decision concludes an international agreement, applicable to occupied Western Sahara, and conceals the genuine country of origin of the goods from that territory, by defining them as being of Moroccan origin.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 January 2019 — PE Digital v EUIPO — Spark Networks Services (ElitePartner)

(Case T-36/19)

(2019/C 93/97)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: PE Digital GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spark Networks Services GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ElitePartner — EU trade mark No 5 996 351

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2018 in Case R 614/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision to the effect that the ground for invalidity under Article 59(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 does not preclude the contested EU trade mark;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and also, with regard to its intervention, the other party in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Volkswagen v EUIPO (CROSS)

(Case T-42/19)

(2019/C 82/81)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: F. Thiering and L. Steidle, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark CROSS — Application No 16 366 528

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2018 in Case R 2500/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s complaint, and allow registration of EU trade mark application No 163 66 528 for all of the goods and services;

— alternatively, annul the contested decision, in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s complaint, and refer the case back to the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 4 February 2019 – ECSEL Joint Undertaking v Personal Health Institute International

(Case T-64/19)

(2019/C 112/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ECSEL Joint Undertaking (represented by: G. Kuyper and P. Brochier, lawyers)

Defendant: Personal Health Institute International (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay to ECSEL the amount of EU 25 513,84, together with interest at the contractual rate of 3,5 % from 15 December 2014 until full payment is received.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, based on an alleged breach of contract by the defendant, which, the applicant alleges, failed to provide any detail or information regarding its project to the relevant national funding authority and failed to fulfil its contractual obligations, thus justifying termination of the contract as far as the defendant was concerned pursuant to the relevant provisions of Article II.20.1 of Annex II to the Grant Agreement.
—

annul the vacancy notice published on 9 March 2018 by the ECHA for a contractual agent FG II post, in so far as it offers a post with tasks identical to those the applicant was performing under her temporary agent contract;
Action brought on 5 February 2019 — AI v ECDC

(Case T-65/19)

(2019/C 131/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AI (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the ECDC of 18 May 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance of 20 June 2017,

— annul the ECDC’s decision of 20 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request of 30 May 2018 for access to the enquiry report;

— annul, if need be, the ECDC’s decision of 26 October 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 2 July 2018;

— order the ECDC to pay financial compensation evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 40 000, in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law in respect of the contested decision of 18 May 2018 and a single plea in law in respect of the contested decision of 20 June 2018.

1. First plea in law, in respect of the contested decision of 18 May 2018, alleging violation of the right to be heard.

2. Second plea in law, in respect of the contested decision of 18 May 2018, alleging violation of the duty to state reasons.

3. Third plea in law, in respect of the contested decision of 18 May 2018, alleging a manifest error of assessment and of facts and the violation of Article 86 of the Staff Regulations.

4. Single plea in law, in respect of the contested decision of 20 June 2018, alleging the breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 13 of Regulation No 45/2001. (1)

(1) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 February 2019 — Solnova v EUIPO — Canina Pharma (BIO-INSECT Shocker)

(Case T-86/19)

(2019/C 122/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Solnova AG (Zollikon, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Lee, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Canina Pharma GmbH (Hamm, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark at issue: Application for EU trade mark BIO-INSECT Shocker — Application for registration No 14 837 553

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2018 in Case R 276/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;