ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 15 March 2021 — Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-150/21)

(2021/C 182/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd (Hangzhou, China), Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd (Rayong, Thailand), Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd (Rayong) (represented by: G. Coppo and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2162 of 18 December 2020 initiating an investigation concerning possible circumvention of the antidumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2384 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, and making such imports subject to registration, insofar as it concerns the applicants;

— order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in initiating the Investigation in absence of sufficient evidence within the meaning of Article 13(3) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 April 2021 — Kewazo v EUIPO (Liftbot)

(Case T-205/21)

(2021/C 217/82)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kewazo GmbH (Garching, Germany) (represented by: P. Baronikians, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Liftbot — Application for registration No 18 191 963

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 February 2021 in Case R 1160/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the refusal decision of EUIPO of 15 September 2020;

— 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 25 March 2021 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Malpricht (APIRETAL)

(Case T-160/21)

(2021/C 206/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ingrid Malpricht (Ludwigshafen, Germany)

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 APIRETAL — European Union trade mark No 4 814 158

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2021 in Case R 1004/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present appeal;

— revoke the defendant’s decision of 20 March 2020;

— annul the contested decision of 20 January 2021;

— revoke the cancellation for non-use the EUTM no. 4 814 158 ‘APERITAL’ in relation to contested goods in Class 5 while maintaining the registration of these goods (as well as to ‘pharmaceutical preparations’);

— order EUIPO and the other party to the appeal proceedings, should it intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Misinterpretation of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council when examining the concept of genuine use of the contested mark of any of the contested goods;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 April 2021 — IN.PRO.DI v EUIPO — Aiello (CAPRI)

(Case T-203/21)

(2021/C 217/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: IN.PRO.DI — Inghirami produzione distribuzione SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: V. Piccarreta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Antonino Aiello (Naples, Italy)

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 EU word mark CAPRI — Application for registration No 13 768 197

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2021 in Case R 49/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and, consequently, as a correction of the decision of the Opposition Division of 12 November 2019, declare that the opposition against the application for registration of European trade mark No 13 768 197 is rejected in its entirety, and thus the application for registration granted in its entirety;

— order A. Aiello to pay the costs in relation to all of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 April 2021 — Groschopp v EUIPO (Sustainability through Quality)

(Case T-212/21)

(2021/C 217/85)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Groschopp AG Drives & More (Viersen, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Sustainability through Quality — Application for registration No 18 158 368

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2021 in Case R 1076/2020-1

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)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 April 2021 — Dorit v EUIPO — Erwin Suter (DORIT)

(Case T-208/21)

(2021/C 228/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dorit-DFT Fleischereimaschinen GmbH (Ellwangen, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Erwin Suter AG, Maschinenfabrik Retus (Kölliken, Switzerland)

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 word mark DORIT — International registration No 878 792

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2021 in Case R 127/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision and allow the application for cancellation of the contested mark;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

— order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO and, if appropriate, order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact in the application of Article 101(1) TFEU in relation to the Commission’s finding that the alleged agreements/concerted practices between Valve and each of the five video game publishers restrict competition ‘by object’ within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, resulting from the Commission’s failure to appreciate the novelty of the conduct at issue, and wrong assessment of the relevant legal and economic context, namely the relevance of the Copyright Directive, the role of Valve as a two-sided platform, and the nature of the products and services at issue (digital videogames).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 May 2021 — Neolith Distribution v EUIPO (Representation of an ornamental pattern)

(Case T-259/21)

(2021/C 252/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Neolith Distribution, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the European Union figurative mark (Representation of an ornamental pattern) — Application for registration No 18 162 188

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2021 in Case R 2155/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— issue a decision ordering EUIPO to accept that the registration of the application for the European Union pattern mark No 18 162 188 is valid in relation to all the goods in respect of which that mark seeks protection in Class 19;

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

Plea in law

Infringement of 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 20 May 2021 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background I)

(Case T-277/21)

(2021/C 278/80)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background I) — Application for registration No 18 206 090

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 in Case R 1895/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 May 2021 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Wisniewski (Representation of a chequerboard pattern)

(Case T-275/21)

(2021/C 263/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, N. Parrotta and P.-Y. Gautier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Norbert Wisniewski (Warsaw, Poland)

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 representing a chequerboard pattern — International registration designating the European Union No 986 207

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2021 in Case R 1307/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision, by holding that the applicant has established acquired distinctiveness through use;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings;

— order Mr. Norbert Wisniewski to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings.

Plea in law
Action brought on 7 May 2021 — SN v Parliament

(Case T-249/21)

(2021/C 278/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SN (represented by: P. Eleftheriadis, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul in whole the Decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament dated 21 December 2020,

— annul in whole the Debit Note addressed to the Applicant, for the amount of 196 199,84 Euros, No 7010000021, dated 15 January 2021 and

— order the European Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs in the proceedings.

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 European Parliament acted without regard to Article 137 of Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. (1)

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the European Parliament misdirected itself in law and failed to apply the correct standard of ‘undue payment’ under Articles 32 and 68 of Decision of the Bureau of 19 May and 9 July 2008, concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. (2)

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the European Parliament failed to have regard to a Member’s right to freedom and independence, under Articles 2 and 21 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. (3)

4. Forth plea in law, alleging failure to give reasons under Article 296 TFEU in dismissing sixty eight out of seventy eight documents submitted by the Member, as ‘inadmissible’ evidence, failure to give reasons for considering that the whole salary was ‘unduly paid’, even though only six months of the thirty month contract were fully investigated, and failure to give reasons for contradicting OLAF’s findings, which exonerated the Applicant of any dishonesty.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of fact.

(1) Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1962 P 45, p. 1385)

(2) Decision of the Bureau of 19 May and 9 July 2008 concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2009/C 159/01) (OJ 2009 C 159, p. 1)

(3) Decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2005/684/EC, Euratom) (OJ 2005 L 262, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 May 2021 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background III)

(Case T-280/21)

(2021/C 278/83)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background III) — Application for registration No 18 206 085

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 in Case R 1897/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
—

In the event that the Court does not consider that the biomass exception can be interpreted as set out in the fifth plea in law, the applicant claims that point 1 of Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC (the biomass exception), in accordance with Article 277 TFEU, should not be applied in the present case. This is because that provision — were the Commission’s interpretation of it to be accepted — runs counter to primary law, including the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. That provision disadvantages those who have gone the furthest in the transition to fossil-free emissions in favour of the others. It therefore incentivises those who have done the most to start using fossil fuels again, and encourages those who still use fossil fuels not to reduce their emissions beyond a certain level.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 June 2021 — Classen Holz Kontor v EUIPO — Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer (new type tiling DRYTILE)

(Case T-308/21)

(2021/C 289/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Classen Holz Kontor GmbH (Kaisersesch, Germany) (represented by: M. Bergermann and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer AG (Alfter, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of European Union figurative mark new type tiling DRYTILE — Application for registration No 18 000 526

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2021 in Case R 1227/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the request for final payment in relation to the project ‘Slovak Safer Internet Centre IV’ be returned to the Commission and INEA for its [sic] evaluation and the implementation of the control competence as well as fulfilment of the contractual obligations based on grant agreement No. INEA/CEF/ICT/A2015/1154788 and that the Commission be ordered to proceed to final payment of the eligible costs to the applicant, in accordance with the valid and effective grant agreement, based on the fact that the Commission has the competence to deal with issues of project implementation and financial transfers under the valid and effective contract between the Commission and the applicant.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 June 2021 — Castel Frères v EUIPO — Shanghai Panati (Representation of Chinese characters)

(Case T-323/21)

(2021/C 310/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Castel Frères (Blanquefort, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shanghai Panati Co. (Shanghai, China)

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 (Representation of Chinese characters) — European Union trade mark No 6 785 109

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2021 in Case R 753/2020-5

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 Fifth Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 July 2021 — the airscreen company v EUIPO — Moviescreens Rental (airscreen)

(Case T-382/21)

(2021/C 329/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Moviescreens Rental GmbH (Damme, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark airscreen — Application for registration No 16 926 735

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 May 2021 in Case R 1990/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 12 June 2021 — EWC Academy v Commission

(Case T-330/21)

(2021/C 320/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: EWC Academy GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Däubler-Gmelin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the rejection decision of 14 April 2021 of the Commission of the European Union, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (EMPL), EMPL.B.2/AP/ab; Ref. Ares (2021);

— oblige the EU Commission to adopt a lawful grant decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested rejection decision of 14 April 2021 of the Commission disregards the meaning of Article 197(2)(c) of the EU Financial Regulation (1) in connection with the call for proposals VP/2020/008 and applies those provisions to European works councils in a legally impermissible manner. The requirement for the applicant European works councils to demonstrate that they have their own budget or annual accounts and bank account as evidence of stability and financial capacity would exclude from that support, a priori, the large majority of European works councils whose national rules for transposing Directive 2009/38/EC (2) do not provide for legal personality. That breaches the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination and diametrically contradicts also the purpose of the support programme.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that as the call for proposals does not mention a restriction of the range of eligible applicants and even expressly applies without limit, including to United Kingdom European works councils, among others, the restriction would also breach the fundamental EU principle of transparency.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the interpretation put forward in the rejection decision and its application to European works councils would also unduly favour undertakings, which — as social partners — in principle are called upon to submit suitable support projects in the call for proposals VP/2020/008.

(1) 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).

(2) Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (Recast) (OJ 2009 L 122, p. 28).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 June 2021 — Unimax Stationery v EUIPO — Mitsubishi Pencil (uni)

(Case T-369/21)

(2021/C 338/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unimax Stationery (Daman, India) (represented by: E. Amoah, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mitsubishi Pencil Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

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 uni — European Union trade mark No 6 920 615

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2021 in Case R 1909/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law