ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/50

Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Voitures)

(Case T-43/18)

(2018/C 104/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (Altdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design No 5467-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2017 in Case R 1204/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO and declare EU design No 5467-0001 invalid;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/34

Action brought on 23 January 2018 — Yado v EUIPO — Dvectis CZ (seat cushion)

(Case T-30/18)

(2018/C 094/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Yado s.r.o. (Handlová, Slovakia) (represented by: D. Futej, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dvectis CZ s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: European Union design No 2 371 591-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2017 in Case R 1017/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision declaring the appeal inadmissible;

— order the defendant to deal with the appeal and give a ruling thereon;

— order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Error in law for the purpose of Article 57 of Regulation No 6/2002 and Article 65 of Regulation No 2245/2002;

— Infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to be heard;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/47

Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Visi/one v EUIPO — EasyFix (Information displays for vehicles)

(Case T-74/18)

(2018/C 112/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Visi/one GmbH (Remscheid, Germany) (represented by: H. Bourree and M. Bartz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EasyFix GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 1391114-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 in Case R 1424/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeals procedure.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the second sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002;

— Infringement of the first sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002;
First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(1) of, and Annex III to, Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers.

According to the applicant, that infringement resulted from the fact that the Commission considered that, first, elements such as rock outcrops, ponds and small woods covered by French legislation do not come within the GAEC and, second, that those provisions require the individual protection of each landscape element and, consequently, that those elements could not be incorporated in the total area of agricultural land.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/33

Action brought on 16 February 2018 — DeepMind Technologies v EUIPO (STREAMS)

(Case T-97/18)

(2018/C 134/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DeepMind Technologies Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. St Quintin, barrister, K. Gilbert and G. Lodge, solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark STREAMS — Application for registration No 15 166 176

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 35/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision because it infringes Article 7 EUTMR, alternatively;

— annul the contested decision on the same basis;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Panel’s decision infringes Article 15 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that (i) the resolution policy for credit institutions is not a valid exception for restricting the fundamental right to access to documents, (ii) the requirements of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 are not met, and (iii) the valuation of the interests at stake makes it necessary to grant access to the documents requested.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/58

Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (200 PANORAMICZNYCH)

(Case T-117/18)

(2018/C 142/76)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 688

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2194/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;

and/or

— declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

in the alternative

— annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 688), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;

and/or

— declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the restrictive measures without previously informing the Applicant of its intention, and without previously hearing the position of the Applicant on the facts allegedly justifying the restrictive measures, the Council infringed the Applicant’s right to be heard.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/42

Action brought on 23 February 2018 — Pink Lady America v CPVO — WAAA (Cripps Pink)

(Case T-112/18)

(2018/C 152/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pink Lady America LLC (Yakima, Washington, United States) (represented by: R. Manno and S. Travaglio, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Western Australian Agriculture Authority (WAAA) (South Perth, Australia)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community Plant variety right at issue: Community Plant Variety Right No EU1640, apple variety Cripps Pink

Procedure before CPVO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity.

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 14 September 2017 in Case A007/2016

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the Cripps Pink apple tree variety CPVR No 1640 for lack of novelty according to Article 10 along with Article 20 of Regulation No 2100/94;

— order the CPVO and the Western Australian Agriculture Authority to bear the costs and expenses of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the combined provisions of Articles 10 and 20 of Regulation No 2100/94;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/58

Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Laverana v EUIPO — Agroecopark (VERA GREEN)

(Case T-106/18)

(2018/C 142/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co.KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agroecopark (Majadahonda, 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: EU word mark VERA GREEN — Application for registration No 15 068 646

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2017 in Case R 982/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of proceedings.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging there is no legal basis for the adoption of the contested decision. According to the applicant, the ECB has no jurisdiction to impose a prudential requirement of general scope and has not conducted an individual and detailed assessment of the applicant’s situation as required by the applicable legislation.
—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 7 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 7 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/58

Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Arkéa Direct Bank and Others v ECB

(Case T-149/18)

(2018/C 161/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Arkéa Direct Bank (Puteaux, France), Caisse de Bretagne de Crédit Mutuel Agricole (Le Relecq Kerhuon, France), Crédit Mutuel Arkéa (Le Relecq Kerhuon), Crédit foncier et communal d’Alsace et de Lorraine-banque (Strasbourg, France), Fédéral Finance (Le Relecq Kerhuon), Arkéa Home Loans SFH (Brest, France), Arkéa Banking Services (Paris, France), Arkéa Public Sector SCF (Le Relecq Kerhuon), Arkéa Banque Entreprises et Institutionnels (Le Relecq Kerhuon), Keytrade Bank Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Article 8 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of 19 December 2017, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;

— order the ECB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-143/18, Societe Generale v ECB.
1.

First plea in law, alleging the violation by the defendant of the principle of sound administration and of Article 41 of the Charter on the principle of reasonable delay.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/34

Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Kuota International v EUIPO — Sintema Sport (K)

(Case T-136/18)

(2018/C 166/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Kuota International Corp. Ltd (British Virgin Islands) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sintema Sport Srl (Albiate, Italy)

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 trade mark K — European Union trade mark No 11 380 771

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 3111/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— hold and rule that the present action is admissible;

— annul the contested decision in so far as it found that the applicant did not provide evidence of bad faith and held that the action seeking a declaration of invalidity based on Article 59(1)(b) of the EUTMR may not be allowed;

— declare European Union trade mark No 11 380 771 invalid on the basis of Article 59(1)(b) of the EUTMR;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

Order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 1 102 291,68 (one million one hundred and two thousand two hundred and ninety-one euros and sixty-eight cents) as compensation for the losses suffered, to be adjusted if necessary, divided as follows: — in respect of the non-material harm suffered by reason of never having [been] heard as regards the facts which gave rise to the charges against him, the sum of EUR 60 000; — in respect of the losses suffered as a result of the unlawful, unjustified and disproportionate conduct of the European Commission in pursuing procedures without any factual ground or material element: — the sum of EUR 39 293,38 in respect of material harm, namely lawyers’ fees; — the sum of EUR 872,74 in respect of material harm, namely travel expenses; — the sum of EUR 500 000 in respect of non-material harm, namely the undeniable damage caused to his reputation and honour; — the sum of EUR 500 000 as compensation for the physical and mental harm adversely affecting his state of health; — the sum of EUR 2 125,56 in respect of material harm, namely examination and medical costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 182/26

Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Chrysses Demetriades & Co. and Provident Fund of the Employees of Chrysses Demetriades & Co v Council and Others

(Case T-198/18)

(2018/C 182/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Chrysses Demetriades & Co. LLC (Limassol, Cyprus), Provident Fund of the Employees of Chrysses Demetriades & Co LLC (Limassol) (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup and European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the schedule annexed to this application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

In the alternative, by way of subsidiary claim, the applicants request the Court to:

— find that the European Union and/or the defendant institutions have incurred non-contractual liability;

— determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the recoverable loss actually suffered by the applicants; and

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-197/18, JV Voscf and Others v Council and Others.
—

order the European Union to make good the damage suffered by the Applicants as a result of the adoption and application of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality in the amounts as stated in the application or such amount as the Court finds to be due to the Applicants;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that the applicant, in his roles as President and former Vice-President of the Supreme Court of Venezuela, has supported and facilitated the Government’s actions and policies which have undermined democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela, and is responsible for actions and statements that have usurped the authority of the National Assembly.
Case T-271/18: Action brought on 3 May 2018 — Mauritsch/INEA

Action brought on 3 May 2018 — Mauritsch/INEA

(Case T-271/18)

Parties

Applicant: Walter Mauritsch (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, first, the defendant’s decision of 24 January 2018, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 4 October 2017, and, second, its decision of 2 August 2017, rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation, filed on 10 April 2017;

— order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the material prejudice allegedly suffered as a result of the defendant’s fault, amounting to the loss of his entitlement to unemployment benefits for a period of maximum three years, increased by the relevant interest rate; and

— order the defendant to reimburse the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a plea in law to the effect that the defendant failed to provide him with proper and clear information about his social security rights in the event of his refusal to sign the contract renewal. The applicant argues that he was not in a position to know that his refusal to sign the contract would be treated as resignation. Thus, the applicant was deprived of information and the defendant breached its duty of care and the principle of good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Case T-259/18: Action brought on 23 April 2018 — Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg v EUIPO — EuroChem Agro (Unifoska)

Action brought on 23 April 2018 — Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg v EUIPO — EuroChem Agro (Unifoska)

(Case T-259/18)

Parties

Applicant: Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg sp. z o.o. (Tarnobrzeg, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EuroChem Agro GmbH (Mannheim, Germany).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Unifoska — Application for registration No 015017841

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2018 in Case R 1503/2017-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the EUIPO for reconsideration; or

— alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the EUTMA 01501784 ‘Unifoska’ for all goods in class 1 and the trademark shall be registered;

— award the costs in the Applicant's favor.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Applicant does not fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time. The Council of the European Union has failed to properly take into account and consider all of the material provided to it while also being highly selective in the material that it has taken into account. Arguments in support of this plea include that: the Applicant is merely the subject of pre-trial investigations which have stagnated and are clearly not sufficient to satisfy the relevant criterion; and the materials upon which the Council has based its decision to maintain the Applicant’s name on the list are wholly inadequate, inconsistent, false and are not supported by any evidence.
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the European Commission in the application of Article 11(1) and 12(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations in so far as, by its decision, the Commission rejected the applicant’s application for grant of the leaving allowance provided for in Article 12(2) of that annex by, on the contrary, restricting him to application of article 11(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, which, however, does not apply to his situation.
Order the Board to pay the following amounts to the applicants as compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered:

As compensation for pecuniary damage, the total sum of EUR 7570098,17in respect of the redemption of shares in Banco Popular, divided on a pro rata basis, according to the shareholdings of each of the applicants, as follows:

— María Graciela Calvo Gutiérrez: EUR 8836,67;

— Eric Gancedo Holmer: EUR 35257,42;

— María Graciela Calvo Gutiérrez and Eric Gancedo Holmer: EUR 39358,01;

— Carlos Eric Gancedo Calvo: EUR 7374,19;

— Gabriel Gancedo Calvo: EUR 7062,93;

— Jorge Gancedo Calvo: EUR 8545,24;

— Lucía Gancedo Calvo: EUR 7388,69;

— Manuel Gancedo Calvo: EUR 9472,17;

— José Gancedo Calvo: EUR 7389,45;

— Claudia Sáez de Montagut Gancedo: EUR 763,66;

— Bosco Sáez de Montagut Gancedo: EUR 2879,18;

— Yago Sáez de Montagut Gancedo: EUR 379,16;

— VICA58, S.L.: EUR 265763,84;

— Diana Luisa Gancedo Holmer: EUR 175499,04;

— Guillermo de Zavala Gancedo: EUR 722,47;

— Alfredo de Zavala Gancedo: EUR 718,65;

— Cosme de Zavala Gancedo: EUR 1006,27;

— Bruno de Zavala Gancedo: EUR 689,66;

— María Astrid Gancedo Holmer: EUR 442136,41;

— Marco Gancedo Holmer: EUR 442135,64;

— LOS PRUNOS DEL SETO, S.L.: EUR 6898,14;

— MANUEL GANCEDO, S.A.: EUR 5340911,85;

— EVEDAM INMUEBLES, S.L.: EUR 620238,46;

— GANCEDO Y GONZÁLEZ, S.L.: EUR 138671,57; and

As compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the sum of up to EUR 7570098,78or such amount as the General Court shall see fit to award, divided on a pro rata basis for each of the applicants in the same proportion as the amount awarded as compensation for pecuniary damage.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission, in adopting Regulation 2018/330, committed manifest errors of assessment of the law and of facts by having recourse to the analogue country methodology for the calculation of the normal value for the applicant in breach of Articles 1(2), 1(3), 2(a)(1), 2(a)(7) and 11(9) of Regulation 2016/1036 as well as Articles 2.2 and 6.10.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Commission failed to provide any reasons whatsoever for the application, in the case of the applicant, of Article 2(7) of Regulation 2016/1036.