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

Action brought on 18 October 2018 — Gres de Aragón/EUIPO (GRES ARAGÓN)

(Case T-624/18)

(2018/C 445/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Gres de Aragón (Alcalñiz, Spain) (represented by: J. Learte Álvarez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark GRES ARAGÓN — Application for registration No 16 311 938

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 August 2018 in Case R 2269/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision refusing European Union trade mark application No 16 311 938 GRES ARAGÓN in connection with some of the goods/services covered by the application;

— Resume the processing of the application in respect of all the goods and services covered by the original application;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), and Article 7(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 10 October 2018 — FT v ESMA

(Case T-625/18)

(2019/C 16/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FT (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision ESMA41-137-1154 of the Executive Director of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) of 9 August 2018 with which ESMA requests the recovery of the amount of EUR 12 000, in relation to the costs incurred by ESMA in Case F-39/14;

— annul the related debit note No 4440180170 of 10 August 2018 issued by ESMA;

— order ESMA to bear its own costs and those of the applicant in the current 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 violation of Article 98 of the Financial Regulation, (1) Article 60 of the ESMA Financial Regulation, (2) Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, as well as the principle of equality of arms of the parties of a dispute, as the amount allegedly owed by the applicant and stipulated in the contested acts had not been determined in accordance with the said Article 170 by the General Court.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the costs claimed by the defendant are non-recoverable, as it exceeded the reasonable time for making such requests.

3. Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of appreciation by the defendant of the debt owed by the applicant, as the amount claimed of EUR 12 000 is exorbitant.

(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) Decision of the Management Board on the Financial Regulation of the European Securities and Markets

Authority ESMA/2014/MB/38.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 October 2018 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes Atopimed)

(Case T-642/18)

(2019/C 4/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Faes Farma, SA (Lamiaco-Leioa, 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 word mark DermoFaes Atopimed — Application for registration No 15 069 396

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2018 in Case R 1365/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the opposition and reject the contested application;

— order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 November 2018 — Twitter v EUIPO — Hachette Filipacchi Presse (PERISCOPE)

(Case T-682/18)

(2019/C 25/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Twitter, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor and J. Schmitt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hachette Filipacchi Presse SA (Levallois Perret, France)

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 PERISCOPE — Application for registration No 13 837 794

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2018 in Case R 2315/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it held that (a) the earlier French mark no. 3 366 460 had been genuinely used for ‘software and computer programs’ in class 9, and (b) that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue for goods and services in classes 9, 41, 42 and 45;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and the other party before the Board of Appeal if it joins the proceedings as intervener.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of the Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 October 2018 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes)

(Case T-643/18)

(2019/C 16/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Faes Farma, SA (Lamiaco-Leioa, 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 word mark DermoFaes — Application for registration No 15 069 289

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2018 in Case R 1842/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the opposition and reject the contested application;

— order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law
—

annul the defendant’s Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 relating to Ref. C(2018) 3166 insofar as it orders that, in respect of the years 2012 and 2013, baseload consumers with at least 7 000 hours of full use per year repay more than 20 % of published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 hours of full use per year repay more than 15 % of published network charges and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 hours of full use per year repay more than 10 % of published network charges;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 November 2018 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ADPepper)

(Case T-668/18)

(2019/C 25/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: 6Minutes Media GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch and T. Hilser, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ad pepper media International NV (Nuremberg, 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: EU word mark ADPepper — EU trade mark No 1 109 990

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2018 in Case R 840/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and — should it formally intervene — also the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 December 2018 — Dalasa v EUIPO — Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin (charantea)

(Case T-732/18)

(2019/C 54/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dalasa Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: I. Hödl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Gliedkörperschaft Öffentlichen Rechts (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the mark at issue: Applicant

Mark at issue: Application for EU word mark charantea — Application for registration No 15 485 956

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 in Case R 539/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the action, alter the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 15 October 2018, R 539/2018-4 concerning opposition proceedings B 2 758 830 (EU trade mark application No 15 485 956), reject the opposition, and allow the EU trade mark application to proceed to registration;

in the alternative,

— annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 15 October 2018, R 539/2018-4 concerning opposition proceedings B 2 758 830 (EU trade mark application No 15 485 956) and refer the case back to EUIPO;

— in any event, order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings; and

— order the opposing party to pay all of the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Action brought on 23 November 2018 — Montanari v EEAS

(Case T-692/18)

(2019/C 35/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marco Montanari (Reggio Emilia, Italy) (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare this action admissible and well founded;

— annul the contested decision refusing the applicant access wholly or in part to the document referred to [below]; and

— order the defendant to pay the full costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action has been brought against the decision of 24 October 2018 of the European External Action Service refusing to grant the applicant access to the report of 29 July 2017 drawn up following the mediation mission carried out by the Head of the ‘Mission Support’ Division.

In support of the action, the applicant invokes three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1049/2001, Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. More specifically, the applicant submits that public access to the documents of the institutions is, in principle, the legal rule and the possibility of refusal is the exception. However, the exceptions provided for by Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 and relied on by the European External Action Service cannot justify refusal of access to the documents, on the ground that the conditions set out in that article are not met.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the contested decisions are vitiated by a failure to state reasons or by an inadequate statement of reasons.
—

annul the Decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament dated 4 October 2018, notified by letter No D316037 dated 10 October 2018, taken pursuant to Article 68 of European Parliament Bureau Decision 2009/C 159/01 of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament’ as amended, finding a debt on the part of the applicant amounting to EUR 130 339,35 in respect of amounts unduly paid in the context of parliamentary assistance and giving reasons for its recovery;
Action brought on 12 December 2018 — DQ and Others v Parliament

(Case T-730/18)

(2019/C 54/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: DQ and eleven other applicants (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare this application admissible and well-founded;

Accordingly,

— Annul the implied decision to reject the claim for compensation (‘the contested decision’) brought by the applicants on 13 December 2017 pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;

— annul, if necessary, the decision of 12 September 2018 rejecting the complaint lodged on 23 May 2018 within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

— Order compensation for the non-material damage caused by a series of acts and conduct of Parliament which must be the subject of a global assessment and which the applicants estimate, subject to re-assessment, at the sum ex aequo et bono of EUR 192 000

— Order the Parliament to pay compensatory interest and default interest accrued;

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants invoke the unlawful acts committed by Parliament in its capacity as employer, in particular a breach of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, infringement of their dignity, breach of their private and family life, breach of their right to the protection of medical confidentiality and breach of their right to working conditions that respect their health, safety and dignity.

The applicants claim that the facts and conduct they had complained of constituted, prima facie, genuine or, at the very least, plausible facts and conduct that give rise to a presumption of psychological harassment against them and conclude that the European Parliament was liable, in particular because of its passivity in the handling of their request for assistance based on Articles 12 and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in finding that the applicant’s innocent dealings with a third party cast doubt on the applicant’s integrity. — The applicant contends that the ECB erred in law in finding that the applicant’s dealings with a third party cast doubt on his integrity in circumstances where the ECB accepts that the applicant had no knowledge of any wrongdoing on the part of that third party at the time and in circumstances where the applicant was an innocent victim of that wrongdoing.
—

annul the decision of the European Commission, as notified to the applicants by letter of 27 November 2018, to award the contract for services relating to the planning, preparation, promotion and implementation of the ‘European Development Days’ event for its Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (EuropeAid/139729/DH/SER/BE) (2018/S 144- 328417) for the years 2019 to 2022 inclusive, to a third party;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Clatronic International/EUIPO (PROFI CARE)

(Case T-5/19)

(2019/C 82/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clatronic International GmbH (Kempen, Germany) (represented by: O. Löffel, lawyer)

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 PROFI CARE — Application for registration No 1 372 358

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 in Case R 504/2018-1

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) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

Establish the non-contractual liability of the ECB and the SRB as a consequence of the failures specified in the application, and order the defendants to compensate the applicants in respect of the harm suffered, estimated at the financial value of their shares which, according to the SRB’s own ‘Evaluation 1’, amounted to EUR 2,0020217 per share; and, in the alternative, order the defendant institutions to pay compensation equivalent to EUR 0,8442 per share.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 January 2019 — SBS Bilimsel Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Laboratorios Ern (apiheal)

(Case T-53/19)

(2019/C 103/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: SBS Bilimsel Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. López Camba, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark apiheal — Application for registration No 14 411 557

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2018 in Case R 1725/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it refused registration in respect of goods in Classes 30 and 5 (first and third paragraphs of the operative part of that decision);

— order EUIPO and Laboratorios Ern, SA, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 17 January 2019 — Benavides Torres/Council

(Case T-35/19)

(2019/C 93/96)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Antonio José Benavides Torres (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653, (2) in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

— order the defendant to pay costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that his name should be maintained on the lists set out in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 (3) and Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063, (4) notwithstanding the fact that he would no longer serve any role within and would not be related to the Venezuelan political or military authorities.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 10).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 1).

(3) Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 60).

(4) Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 21).
—

Annul the decision of 22 March 2018 of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions notified to the applicant through his legal representative by a letter from the legal representative of that agency, the law firm Beauchamps, in that it rejects the applicant’s complaint alleging breach of the rules on the protection of private and personal data, his request for an investigation into that breach and his claim for compensation lodged on 2 February 2018 through his legal representative;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 January 2019 — View v EUIPO (CREATE DELIGHTFUL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS)

(Case T-49/19)

(2019/C 103/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: View, Inc. (Milpitas, Delaware, United States) (represented by: G. Tritton, Barrister)

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 word mark CREATE DELIGHTFUL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS — International registration designating the European Union No 1 381 213

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 in Case R 1625/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant.

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 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (AI currencypersonalassistant)

(Case T-95/19)

(2019/C 139/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, 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 figurative mark AI currencypersonalassistant — Application for registration No 15 225 097

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1053/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;