ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/47

Action brought on 12 May 2016 — Polskie Zdroje v EUIPO (perlage)

(Case T-239/16)

(2016/C 243/53)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polskie Zdroje sp. z o.o. sp. k. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, legal adviser)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘perlage’ — application for registration no 13 472 899

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2016 in Case R 1129/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/36

Action brought on 25 April 2016 — Make up for ever v EUIPO — L’Oréal (MAKE UP FOR EVER PROFESSIONAL)

(Case T-185/16)

(2016/C 243/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Make up for ever SA (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Caron, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L’Oréal (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative trade mark containing the word elements ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER PROFESSIONAL’ — EU trade mark No 3 371 341

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 5 February 2016 in Case R 3222/20014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— conclude that the semi-figurative EU trade mark ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER PROFESSIONAL’ No 3 371 341 is valid for all of the goods and services covered by the filing;

— annul the contested decision;

— refer the case back to the EUIPO for further action, if necessary;

— order the company L’Oréal to pay the costs arising from the proceedings before the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO, the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO and the present proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

The first plea is based on an infringement of a rule of law by the European Commission and the impossibility of the European Commission adopting an act that is challengeable under Article 263 TFEU with respect to this case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/39

Action brought on 5 May 2016 — Massive Bionics v EUIPO — Apple (DriCloud)

(Case T-223/16)

(2016/C 251/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Massive Bionics, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Galindo Martens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apple, Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States of America)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘DriCloud’ — Application for registration No 11 723 509

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 03/03/2016 in Case R 339/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/48

Action brought on 6 May 2016 — Pio De Bragança v EUIPO — Ordem de São Miguel da Ala (QUIS UT DEUS)

(Case T-229/16)

(2016/C 270/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Duarte Pio De Bragança (Sintra, Portugal) (represented by: J. Sardinha, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ordem de São Miguel da Ala (Lisbon, Portugal)

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 containing the word elements ‘quis ut deus’ — European Union trade mark No 005747936

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2016 in Case R 621/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and, therefore, declare the total invalidity, on the grounds of lack of genuine use, of the contested trade mark including with respect to the ‘signboards of metal’ goods belonging to Class 6;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 15(1) and Article 51(1)(a) and 51(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, [the present action] having been brought under Article 65 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).
1.

First plea in law: infringements of law and manifest errors of assessment committed by the European Commission. The contested decision does not comply with the legal requirements governing waiver of immunity from legal proceedings of the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and is based on a manifestly erroneous reading of the documents in the case-file. Moreover, the contested decision did not correctly assess the EU’s interest and compromises the independence of the Director-General of OLAF.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/35

Action brought on 3 June 2016 — Anta (China) v EUIPO (Representation of two drawn lines)

(Case T-291/16)

(2016/C 279/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Anta (China) Co. Ltd (Jinjiang City, China) (represented by: A. Franke, K. Hammerstingl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of two drawn lines) — Application for registration No 13 581 483

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2016 in Case R 1292/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to identify a proper legal base for Article 1(1) of Decision 2011/172/CFSP (the ‘Decision’) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 (the ‘Regulation’). There is no evidence that the Council undertook any review of the legal basis of Article 1(1) of the Decision in adopting Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 (the ‘Contested Decision’), notwithstanding the express obligation to do so under Article 5 of the Decision. The fact that Article 1(1) may have had a valid legal basis when it was first adopted on 21 March 2011 does not provide the provision with an enduring legal basis until 2016 or later.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/34

Action brought on 29 June 2016 — De Masi v Commission

(Case T-341/16)

(2016/C 287/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Fabio De Masi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Professor A. Fischer-Lescano)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 June 2016 on the restrictive access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group of 8 June 2016;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of any intervening party, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, by which he alleges an infringement of the rights of parliamentary representatives stemming from the second paragraph of Article 230 TFEU in conjunction with Article 10(2) TEU and obligations to provide information.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/29

Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Tamasu Butterfly Europa v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Butterfly)

(Case T-315/16)

(2016/C 287/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Tamasu Butterfly Europa GmbH (Moers, Germany) (represented by: C. Röhl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, 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: EU word mark ‘Butterfly’

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2016 in Case R 221/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Alter the contested decision to the effect that the opposition is upheld in its entirety and EU trade mark application No 011757549 is rejected;

— order the other party to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/42

Action brought on 4 July 2016 — Axel Springer v EUIPO — Stiftung Warentest (TestBild)

(Case T-359/16)

(2016/C 296/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Axel Springer SE (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and G. Müllejans)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stiftung Warentest (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘TestBild’ — Application for registration No 4 555 579

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2016 in Case R 555/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/35

Action brought on 22 June 2016 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO)

(Case T-336/16)

(2016/C 296/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gianni Versace SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO’ — Application for registration No 11 992 435

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2016 in Case R 1005/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present action;

— annul the contested decision and, consequently, register mark No 11 992 435 in respect of all the goods claimed, without prejudice to those already granted;

— order the other party to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/47

Action brought on 28 June 2016 — Flatworld Solutions/EUIPO — Outsource2India (Outsource 2 India)

(Case T-340/16)

(2016/C 305/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Flatworld Solutions Pvt. Ltd (Bangalore, India) (represented by: S. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes, J. Schumacher, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Outsource2India Ltd (Friedrichshafen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Outsource 2 India’ — EU trade mark No 6 035 547

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2016 in Case R 611/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of 3 February 2015;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs incurred by the Applicant.

Plea in law
First plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is null and void for lack of competence as a result of the Commission’s improper use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny.

In that regard, it is submitted that the Commission infringed Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).

It is also submitted that in so far as the contested regulation establishes a European system of new, increased thresholds for NOx emissions, it alters an essential element of a basic act, as a result of which the Commission failed to observe the formal requirements provided for its adoption, thereby infringing an essential procedural requirement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/25

Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Jindal Saw et Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

(Case T-301/16)

(2016/C 314/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India) and Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/388 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India, in so far as it relates to the Applicants; and

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

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 by means of the determination of the export prices, the Commission infringed Articles 2(8), 2(9), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that by means of its price effects, injury and causation determinations, the Commission infringed Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 4(1), 5(4) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the first, second and third subparagraphs of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 (2) in conjunction with Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (3) — The applicant claims that the defendant was wrong to make the applicant subject to an obligation to pay a contribution to the Fund, as the institution has no risk exposure, there is no prospect of the institution entering into resolution in accordance with the rules of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, and the institution is of no importance to the stability of the financial system. — The applicant is no longer operationally active on the market. Since the beginning of 2012 it no longer engages in any new business and it is under resolution as a result of an aid decision by the Commission. It holds the majority of its remaining liabilities on trust for another entity, which has taken over the opportunities and risks from that business. — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, (4) which makes no provision for exceptions for institutions such as the applicant, itself infringes Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/42

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Galletas Gullon v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (Shape of a package)

(Case T-404/16)

(2016/C 343/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Galletas Gullon, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: tridimensional mark (Shape of a package) — EU trade mark No 3 408 424

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 in Case R 1613/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law: The claim for annulment of the decision of 14 September 2012 not to renew the appellant’s employment contract: The contested first-instance judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal relied on the reasoning that the (former) EMCDDA Director's decision of 19 December 2012 is one aimed at the appellant's formal complaint of 10 December 2012, challenging — including but not limited to — the (former) Director's decision of 14 September 2012 not to renew the appellant's employment contract. However, as it is obvious from the mere wording of the referred letter, it is impossible to interpret it as such. Instead, it is a decision about initiating an administrative inquiry based on the appellant's complaint. In addition, in this very same letter the (former) Director denies having made a decision at all with regard to the appellant's employment contract. Furthermore, even if the manifestly wrong interpretation of the contested decision were to be upheld, it is still against the law and illegal, since the appellant had not been heard before (judgment of 12 December 2013, CH v Parliament, F-129/12, EU:F:2013:203) and it is constituted a mere preparatory act (judgment of 16 March 2009, R v Commission, T-156/08 P, EU:T:2009:69) and as such, could not be independently challenged (judgment of 10 November 2009, N v Parliament, F-71/08, EU:F:2009:150; and order of 23 October 2012, Possanzini v Frontex, F-61/11, EU:F:2012:146) . The contested decision also constituted a misuse of powers (judgments of 19 October 1995, Obst v Commission, T-562/93, EU:T:1995:181; of 12 December 2000, Dejaiffe v OHIM, T-223/99, EU:T:2000:292; and judgment of 25 September 2012, Bermejo Garde v EESC, F-41/10, EU:F:2012:135) based on evidence available in the case-file. It is even questionable whether the (former) EMCDDA Director had the power of authority at the time of making the contested decision (order of 25 October 1996, Lopes v Court of Justice, T-26/96, EU:T:1996:157). It must be reminded that the Defendant failed to lodge a defence, which in turn led to a judgment by default. In the reasoning of the contested first-instance judgment, the Tribunal relied on an argument of the Defendant's defence lodged in a different case (F-22/14, Gyarmathy v EMCDDA), and thereby violated procedural boundaries. The Civil Service Tribunal's first-instance judgment with regards to the second plea is also contrary to the facts and evidence, available in the case-file. It constitutes a manifest violation of procedural boundaries. As such, it must be repealed and overturned, and the contested decision must be annulled.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Freunde)

(Case T-450/16)

(2016/C 364/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Beste Freunde’ — Application for registration No 14 170 013

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 in Case R 93/2016-4

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 course of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
—

consequently, order: — The judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-9/12 RENV (CC v European Parliament) is set aside with the exception of paragraph 3 of the operative part relating to the costs. — The European Parliament is ordered to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 749 449,03 by way of compensation for material loss, evaluated for the period from December 2003 to December 2011, plus pensions funds, and for the subsequent period until the legal retirement age, at the monthly net payment amounts corresponding to the salaries fixed for officials in function group AD from grade AD 9 step 2, second year, taking account of the normal career of an official of that grade, supplemented by the corresponding contributions to the sickness fund, all to be increased by late-payment interest at the rate of the European Central Bank plus two points. — In addition, the European Parliament is ordered to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 70 000 by way of compensation for non-material loss. — The European Parliament shall bear its own costs and is ordered to pay all the costs incurred by the appellant in the present proceedings.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Düll v EUIPO — Cognitect (DaToMo)

(Case T-381/16)

(2016/C 364/10)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Klaus Düll (Südergellersen, Germany) (represented by: S. Wolff-Marting, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cognitect, Inc. (Durham, North Carolina, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DaToMo’ — EU trade mark No 6 715 627

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 in Joined Cases R 1383/2015-2 and R 1481/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision to the effect that the restriction ‘all the aforementioned for the enterprise mobility management (EMM)’ is not added to the services which, following the abovementioned decision, remain listed in the class specification for Class 42 in the list of goods and services covered by trade mark No 6715627 DaToMo;

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

Plea in law