ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-357/18: Action brought on 8 June 2018 — Luz Saúde v EUIPO — Clínica La Luz (HOSPITAL DA LUZ)

Action brought on 8 June 2018 — Luz Saúde v EUIPO — Clínica La Luz (HOSPITAL DA LUZ)

(Case T-357/18)

Parties

Applicant: Luz Saúde (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and P. Guerra e Andrade, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clínica La Luz, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘HOSPITAL DA LUZ’ — Application for registration No 14 791 495

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 April 2018 in Case R 2084/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision refusing in part the registration of the applicant’s mark concerned by the procedure at issue, alter it and allow the registration;

— order EUIPO to pay all the costs.

Plea in law
Case T-282/18: Action brought on 3 May 2018 — Bernis and Others v SRB

Action brought on 3 May 2018 — Bernis and Others v SRB

(Case T-282/18)

Parties

Applicants: Ernests Bernis (Jurmala, Latvia), Oļegs Fiļs (Jurmala), OF Holding SIA (Riga, Latvia) and Cassandra Holding Company SIA (Jurmala) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

— annul the decisions of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 23 February 2018 regarding ABLV Bank, AS and ABLV Bank Luxembourg, SA;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the SRB lacked the competence for the decision as to liquidation.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicants’ rights by announcing a formal decision not to adopt resolution measures.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicants’ rights owing to its erroneous assessment pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014. ( 1 )

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicants’ rights owing to its erroneous assessment pursuant to Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 806/2014.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that that the SRB violated the applicants’ right to be heard and other procedural rights.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicants’ right to an appropriately reasoned decision.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the case.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality.

9. Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of equal treatment.

10. Tenth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicants’ right of property and the freedom to conduct a business.

11. Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the nemo auditur principle.

12. Twelth plea in law, alleging that the SRB committed a détournement de pouvoir.

13. Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicants’ rights pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union because of a failure to ensure the handling of the affairs of ABLV Bank SA by the relevant institutions and bodies of the Union.

( 1 ) 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 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).
Case T-355/18: Action brought on 8 June 2018 — Spain v Commission

Action brought on 8 June 2018 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-355/18)

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the notice of open competitions;

— Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the notice of open competitions to fill posts in the civil service as administrators (AD 6), EPSO/AD/340/18 and EPSO/AD/341/18.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation No 1/58, Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), and Article 1d of the Staff Regulations, by imposing the restriction, which extends to the application form, that communication between EPSO and the applicant should be solely in English, French and German.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58; Article 22 of the Charter; and Article 1d(1) and (6), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations, by improperly restricting the selection of the second language to four languages only, namely English, French, German and Italian, thereby excluding the other official languages of the European Union.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the selection of English, French, German and Italian constitutes an arbitrary selection giving rise to discrimination on the ground of language, prohibited by Article 1 of Regulation No 1/58; Article 22 of the Charter; and Article 1d(1) and (6), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations.
Case T-369/18: Action brought on 18 June 2018 — Napolitano v Commission

Action brought on 18 June 2018 — Napolitano v Commission

(Case T-369/18)

Parties

Applicant: John Napolitano (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decisions;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decisions in the present action are the decision of 27 September 2017 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for the competition EPSO/AD/324/16, the decision dated 25 October 2017 by which the request for review of the decision not to include him on the reserve list was refused, and the decision of the appointing authority of 7 March 2018 dismissing the administrative appeal brought under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations. The competition notice that is the subject of these proceedings concerned the selection of 10 senior investigators at level AD 9 to include on the reserve list on which the European Commission (principally the European Anti-fraud Office — OLAF) was to draw for the recruitment of new administrative officials to manage a group of investigators in the fields of EU expenditure, the fight against corruption, serious irregularities of EU staff, customs and trade, tobacco and counterfeit goods.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions governing the languages to be used by the European Institutions, particularly Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, of the prohibition of discrimination with regards to language, of the principle of proportionality under Article 5 TFEU, and of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of impartiality by the Chairman of the Examining Board and of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the competition notice by the Examining Board, in so far as, first, in counting the points obtained in the multiple choice test and in the test on general competencies, that Board acted unlawfully by conflating two separate concepts (namely ‘minimum score required’ and ‘eliminatory’) and, second, when assigning the case-study relating to the general test, it chose subjects that were too specific and gave an advantage to those who already had experience at the European Anti-fraud Office.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality between candidates, as well as a lack of objectivity in the evaluations owing to the instability of the Examining Board.
—

Order the Board to pay the following amounts to the applicant as compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered (‘the amount due’): — As compensation for pecuniary damage, the total sum of EUR 160558,41 in respect of the redemption of shares in Banco Popular; and — As compensation for non-pecuniary damage, a sum of up to EUR 160558,41 or such amount as the General Court shall see fit to award.
Case T-309/18: Action brought on 17 May 2018 — Adis Higiene v EUIPO — Farecla Products (G3 EXTRA PLUS)

Action brought on 17 May 2018 — Adis Higiene v EUIPO — Farecla Products (G3 EXTRA PLUS)

(Case T-309/18)

Parties

Applicant: Adis Higiene (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented by: M. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Farecla Products Ltd (Ware, United Kingdom)

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: Word mark ‘G3 EXTRA PLUS’ — European Union trade mark No 15 064 207

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2018 in Case R 2134/2017-4

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 Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Rule 22 of Regulation No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Articles 94, 95 and 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 July 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Vogue Peek & Cloppenburg)

(Case T-443/18)

(2018/C 311/17)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Vogue Peek & Cloppenburg — Application for registration No 2 700 847

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 in Case R 1362/2005-1

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 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(2) of the German Law on trade marks;

— Infringement of Article 8(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(3) of the German Law on trade marks;

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Case T-380/18: Action brought on 25 June 2018 — Intas Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — Laboratorios Indas (INTAS)

Action brought on 25 June 2018 — Intas Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — Laboratorios Indas (INTAS)

(Case T-380/18)

Parties

Applicant: Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Ahmedabad, India) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Indas, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón, 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 INTAS — Application for registration No 14 153 811

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 April 2018 in Case R 815/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— in the alternative, alter the contested decision to the state that the opposition shall be remitted to the Opposition Division for it to reconsider the opposition;

— order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application and the costs before the Board;

— in the alternative, if the other party before the Board intervenes, then order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application and the costs before the Board.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Bax v ECB

(Case T-433/18)

(2018/C 328/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Annemieke Bax (Frankfurt, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

— annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB of 14 December 2017, rejecting the applicant’s application to benefit from the career transition support scheme put in place by the ECB;

— if need be, annul the ECB decision of 8 May 2018 rejecting the applicant’s special appeal;

— order the ECB to pay the applicant compensation for the non-material damage suffered in the amount of EUR 20 000;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 infringement of the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and legal certainty.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that decision SEC/EB/X/17/398a.rev-1/final (‘General Methodology for the Practical Implementation of the Career Transition Support Scheme (CTS)’) is illegal, inter alia because it breaches Decision ECB/2017/NP 19 of 17 May 2017.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to discharge its duty of care to the applicant.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to Directive 2006/54. (1)

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality owing to the application of disproportionate eligibility criteria.

(1) Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).
Action brought on 12 July 2018 — WN v Parliament

(Case T-431/18)

(2018/C 319/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— annul the defendant’s decision of 28 September 2017 terminating the applicant’s contract;

— if need be, annul the defendant’s decision of 4 April 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 7 November 2017;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant, evaluated at EUR 20 000;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs incurred by the applicant in respect of the present 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 procedural irregularities including the infringement of the rights of the defence and in particular the right to be heard and breach of the duty to state reasons.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions relating to the conciliation procedure and in particular Articles 23 and 25 of the Implementing measures for Title VII of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the EU.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 1(d) of the Staff Regulations, Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Directive 2006/54/EC. (1)

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by the defendant in relation to the elements contained in the contested decisions.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration, infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the duty of care owed by the defendant to the applicant.

(1) Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 August 2018 — IAK — Forum International v EUIPO — Schwalb (IAK)

(Case T-497/18)

(2018/C 352/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: IAK GmbH — Forum International (Kirchzarten, Germany) (represented by: G. Wilke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ulrich Schwalb (Cologne, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark IAK — EU trade mark No 9 843 533

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2018 in Case R 1511/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision such that the application for a declaration of invalidity is dismissed in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

The first plea in law is based on the defendant’s interpretation (and its financial calculation based on that interpretation) of Commission Decision No 50-2004/28.5.2004 in connection with the practical application of the decision in so far as it accounts for residential property, an interpretation and calculation which the applicant considers to be incorrect — deficiencies in the interpretation from the point of view of the specific nature (financial and economic) of the matter regulated by the Commission decision, — interpretation based on objectively impossible assumptions, — internal discrepancies between separate parts of the Commission decision, examined together, and not independently, arising from the defendant’s interpretation, — subjective and contentious interpretation of words, concepts and phrasing in the text of the Commission decision, which are, essentially, ambiguous from a linguistic point of view and/or from the point of view of their generally accepted meaning, — preference given to theoretical indicators for individual financial elements, for which practical indicators exist.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 July 2018 — Biasotto v EUIPO — OOFOS (OO)

(Case T-454/18)

(2018/C 352/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Biasotto (Treviso, Italy) (represented by: F. Le Divelec Lemmi, R. Castiglioni and E. Cammareri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: OOFOS LLC (Reno, Nevada, United States).

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 trade mark OO — Application for registration No 14 961 791

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2018 in Case R 1281/2017-2.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— fully uphold the present action;

— entirely reject the contested decision, confirming, in substance, the conclusion reached by the EUIPO in its decision of 17 May 2017 relating to opposition proceedings No B 2683558 and, consequently, allowing EUTM application No 14 961 791 to proceed to registration in relation to all products and services claimed by the same in classes 18, 25 and 35;

— order the Intervener to bear all the costs related not only to the present proceedings before the General Court but also to the opposition and appeal proceedings before the EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC PARTNERS)

(Case T-520/18)

(2018/C 392/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BGC Partners LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: P. Walsh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankgirocentralen BGC AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

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 BGC PARTNERS — European Union trade mark No 3 808 185

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2185/2014-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the registration should be declared invalid for ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; banking services; financial services; financial clearing’ in class 36;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

— alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark;
—

The applicant claims that the defendant did not give the applicant the opportunity of defending himself against its allegations under the best possible conditions. The applicant is of the opinion that his right to sound administration was thereby breached.