ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/49

Action brought on 1 July 2016 — Belgacom International Carrier Services/Commission

(Case T-351/16)

(2016/C 305/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Belgacom International Carrier Services (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

— in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

— in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/52

Action brought on 11 July 2016 — Brunner v EUIPO — CBM (H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE)

(Case T-367/16)

(2016/C 305/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Gerd Brunner (Moosthenning, Germany) (represented by: N. Maenz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE’ — Application for registration No 11 988 144

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2016 in Case R 2943/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Opposition Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 10 May 2016 (Case R 2943/2014-5);

— dismiss the intervener’s opposition of 12 November 2013 regarding EU trade mark No 11 306 545 and German trade mark No 302 010 023 903 (Case B002269325);

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the ground for inclusion in the annex to the challenged decision and regulation as specified by Article 28(1) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (the ‘original decision’) and by Article 15(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (the ‘original regulation’).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/31

Action brought on 4 July 2016 — TBWA\London v EUIPO (MEDIA ARTS LAB)

(Case T-361/16)

(2016/C 314/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TBWA\London Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MEDIA ARTS LAB’ — Application for registration No 13 238 308

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 in Case R 958/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for was descriptive and lacked distinctive character for those goods and services for which it was held to be descriptive and lacking in distinctive character;

— allow the EU trade mark application number 13 238 308 to proceed to publication; and

— order the Office to bear its own costs and pay the Applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

— The Office has not taken proper account of the services for which the Application has been made;

— The Office has not properly considered the mark applied for as a whole. Rather, it has broken the mark down into parts using definitions of MEDIA ARTS and MEDIA LAB and stated that these parts are descriptive. It has not addressed the effect of the mark as a whole;

— The Office has failed to accept that the mark is considerably more impenetrable than the PIPELINE decision that they rely upon;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/47

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL LOVER)

(Case T-428/16)

(2016/C 343/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Isabel Martín Osete (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Daniella Rey (Toulouse, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AN IDEAL LOVER’ — EU trade mark No 5 261 599

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 in Case R 1527/2015-2

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 343/43

Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Banco Popular Español v EUIPO — Pledgeling (p)

(Case T-407/16)

(2016/C 343/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Banco Popular Español, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pledgeling LLC (Houston, Texas, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: figurative mark containing the letter ‘p’ — Application for registration No 12 123 147

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 in Case R 1693/2015-2

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.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Bester Opa)

(Case T-449/16)

(2016/C 364/26)

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 ‘Bester Opa’ — Application for registration No 14 169 528

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 in Case R 92/2016-4

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
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/20

Action brought on 14 July 2016 — BP Aromatics v Commission

(Case T-371/16)

(2016/C 350/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BP Aromatics Ltd (Geel, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

— in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

— in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/16

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT INDEX)

(Case T-430/16)

(2016/C 371/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: P. Heusler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘BRENT INDEX’ — Application for registration No 14 284 947

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2016 in Case R 8/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay de costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Grupo Osborne v EUIPO — Ostermann (DONTORO dog friendship)

(Case T-390/16)

(2016/C 364/11)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Daniel Ostermann (Leipzig, Germany)

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: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘DONTORO dog friendship’ — EU trade mark application No 11 112 381

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 2002/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision granting the European Union Trademark No 11 112 381‘DONTORO dog friendship’ (fig.) in Cls. 18, 20 and 35;

— refuse the registration of the European Union Trademark No 11 112 381‘DONTORO dog friendship’ (fig.) in Cl. 35 in the ‘wholesale and retail sale services also through the Internet, garments, shoes and textile products’ and therefore refuse its registration in Classes 25 and 35 in the mentioned services;

— order to whoever opposes this appeal to pay the court’s costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 383/18

Action brought on 16 August 2016 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — Hug (GULLON DARVIDA)

(Case T-456/16)

(2016/C 383/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Galletas Gullón, 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: Hug AG (Malters, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GULLON DARVIDA’ — Application for registration No 11 705 738

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2016 in Case R 773/2015-4

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
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures impose an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property provided for in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to respect for his reputation provided for in Articles 8 and 10(2) of the ECHR, the principle of the presumption of innocence provided for in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to freedom of expression provided for in Article 10 of the ECHR and his right to freedom of movement provided for in Article 2(2) of Protocol No 4 to the ECHR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/50

Action brought on 12 September 2016 — Iame v EUIPO — Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane (Parilla)

(Case T-642/16)

(2016/C 392/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Iame SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Mostardini, G. Galimberti, F. Mellucci and R. Kakkar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane Srl (Reggio Emilia, 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 element ‘Parilla’ — European Union trade mark No 3 065 182

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2016 in Case R 608/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, on the ground of infringement of Article 51 of Regulation No 207/2009, in so far as that decision dismissed action R 608/2015-1 and confirmed the revocation for non-use of EU figurative mark No 3065182 ‘Parilla’, of which IAME S.p.A. is the proprietor, in respect of all the goods and services claimed in Classes 7 and 41; and, accordingly:

— dismiss the application for revocation under Article 51 of Regulation No 207/2009 of EU figurative mark No 3065182 ‘Parilla’, of which IAME S.p.A. is the proprietor, in respect of all the goods and services claimed in Classes 7 and 41;

— reserve all rights to submit further pleas in law and evidence within the time-limits prescribed;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures (i) are an abuse of process and so a misuse of powers; and (ii) amount to a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the European Convention of Human Rights in regard to the applicant’s right to good administration and right to an effective remedy and a fair trial.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/51

Action brought on 30 August 2016 — The Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic)

(Case T-620/16)

(2016/C 402/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: The Logistical Approach BV (Uden, the Netherlands) (represented by: R. Milchior, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Idea Groupe (Montoir de Bretagne, France)

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 ‘Idealogistic’– Application for registration No 12 318 234

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20/06/2016 in Case R 1435/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— principally, annul the contested decision;

— alternatively, amend the contested decision in that it wrongly confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the registration of the mark 012318234 for the services ‘Consultancy in the field of logistics, including route selection, storage facilities and selection of means of transport’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/58

Action brought on 7 September 2016 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (QD)

(Case T-650/16)

(2016/C 402/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘QD’ — Application for registration No 13 633 516

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2016 in Case R 2046/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/57

Action brought on 3 October 2016 — Enoitalia v EUIPO — La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas (ANTONIO RUBINI)

(Case T-707/16)

(2016/C 419/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Enoitalia, Corte Vigna, Baldo, Belvino, Ca' del Lago, Invino, Vinuva, Cantine Borsari, Ca' Montini, E.I., Enoi, V.E.B., Cbe, Ca.Pi SpA (Enoitalia SpA) (Calmasino di Bardolino, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas SA Ltda (Capital Federal, Argentina)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANTONIO RUBINI’ — EU trade mark No 9 526 955

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2016 in Case R 1085/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/30

Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Carlos Javier Jiménez Gasalla v EUIPO (B2B SOLUTIONS)

(Case T-685/16)

(2016/C 410/43)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Javier Jiménez Gasalla (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘B2B SOLUTIONS’ — Application for registration No 14 016 224

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2016 in Case R 244/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2016;

— annul EUIPO’s decision at first instance dated 9 December 2015 by which the reference mark was refused in its entirety;

— amend the earlier decisions allowing the grant of the trade mark of the applicant;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence. It is submitted that the Commission lacks the competence and powers to adopt the acts which are to be annulled.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the selection board, in that the verification of the minimum professional experience in the field of the competition which the selection board was initially required to conduct could not relate to the applicant’s suitability for the vacancy and to the selection criteria set out in that regard given that the verification stage for the admission criteria takes place during the final stages of the competition.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/30

Action brought on 4 October 2016 — Mad Dogg Athletics v EUIPO — Aerospinning Master Franchising (SPINNING)

(Case T-718/16)

(2016/C 462/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. (Venice, California, United States of America) (represented by: J. Steinberg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aerospinning Master Franchising Ltd. s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SPINNING’ — EU trade mark No 175 117

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 in Case R 2375/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it revoked EU work mark No 000175117 ‘SPINNING’ for the goods ‘exercise equipment’ in Class 28 and the services ‘exercise training’ in Class 41;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
1.

First plea in law, alleging errors of law in rejecting the applicants’ first plea as unfounded. The appellants argue that the Civil Service Tribunal committed four main errors with regards to their first plea in law: — first, the Tribunal established, in contravention to applicable case law, that it does not need to review the legality of the Appointing Authority’s actions if the Appointing Authority declares that it has satisfied its legal duties and obligations; — second, the Tribunal was erroneous in dismissing the Joint Monitoring Committee Report as evidence and failing to effectively consider the demonstrated incomparability found in the sources of information used by the Appointing Authority; — third, the Tribunal erroneously ignored — without justification — the existence of the argument and evidence put forward by the applicants regarding the mathematical evaluation of the Appointing Authority’s literary assessment methodology as well as the entire second branch of the applicants first plea in law; — fourth, the Tribunal was erroneous in its presumption that absence of an effective evaluation of comparative merits cannot give rise to annulment of a decision on promotion.