Action brought on 4 Apr il 2018 — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO — Lupu (Djili)
(Case T-231/18)
(2018/C 200/58)
Language in which the application was lodg ed: Engl ish
Parties
Applicant: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Dulov o, Bulg aria) (represente d by: C. Romiţan, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Proper ty Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings befor e the Boar d of Appeal: Victo r Lupu (Bucharest, Romania)
Detail s of the proceedings before EUIPO
Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
Trade mark at issue: EU figurati ve mark Djili — Application for registration No 15 497 662
Procedure befor e EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 Januar y 2018 in Case R 1902/2017-5
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Cour t should:
—annul the cont ested decision;
—reject Lupu Victo r’s appeal;
—order the opponent and the appellant Lupu Victor to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law
—The Board of Appeal erred in find ing that there was an aural similar ity between the signs;
—The Board of Appeal erred in find ing that the conceptual comp arison had no relevance in the case.
Action brought on 16 Apr il 2018 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ v Commission
(Case T-240/18)
(2018/C 200/59)
Language of the case: Polish
Parties
Applicant: Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. (Warsaw , Poland) (represented by: M. Jeżewski, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Cour t should:
—annul the European Commission’s decision of 12 December 2017 in Case M.8672 (EASYJET / CER TAIN AIR BERLIN 
ASSETS), ref. C(2017) 8776 final;
—order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Cour t;
—require the Commission to address, in the cont ext of its statem ent in defence, certain questions raised by the applicant 
concer ning the manner in which the assessment of the effects on comp etition of the concentration concer ned was 
carried out, and to provide certain evidence serving as the basis for its decision.C 200/46 EN Official Jour nal of the European Union 11.6.2018
Pleas in law and main arguments
In suppor t of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provis ions of the Treaty on European Union (‘the Treaty’) 
and the provisions for its imp lementation, in particular those of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, (1) by failing to carry out 
a full assessment of the adverse effects of the concentration concer ned from the point of view of comp etition.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incor rectly assessed the imp act of the concentration concer ned with 
rega rd to the possibility of providing passenger air transpor t services to and from certain airports, thereby committing a 
serious and manifest error in its assessment of that concentration. A properly conducte d analysis of the concentration 
concer ned would necessar ily have led to the conclusion that its implementation will have a series of negative effects on 
com petition, and that it will have a great er nega tive imp act on comp etition than the absence of a concentration in the 
opposit e scenar io.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the ‘Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal merg ers’ by 
failing to examine whether the efficiency gains achieved by the concentration concer ned offset the negative effects of 
that concentration on competition.
4.Four th plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty and the provisions for its 
implementation by failing to impose requirements on easyJet designed to prevent the signifi cant disto rtion of effective 
com petition by the concentration concer ned.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty and the provisions for its 
implementation by failing to carry out an assessment of the impact of the concentration concer ned on the internal 
mark et in the context of the State aid in the amount of EUR 150 million previously grante d to Air Berlin on 15 August 
2017 by the Federal Republic of Germany . That aid was approved by the Commission by Commission Decision C(2017) 
6080 final of 4 Sept ember 2017 approving the State aid grante d to Air Berlin by the Federal Republic of Germany .
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 296 TFEU by provid ing an inadequate statement of 
reasons in its decision, as demonstrated by, inter alia, the failure to carry out a full analysis of the facts of the case, the 
failure to take account of a series of elements needed to provide a reliable verification of the full impact of the 
concentration on competition, the failure to carry out an assessment of the impact of that concentration on the internal 
mark et in the cont ext of the State aid previously grante d to Air Berlin, and the failure to provide any grounds for not 
carrying out such an assessment.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 Januar y 2004 on the control of concentrations between under takings (the EC Merg er 
Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).
Action brought on 16 Apr il 2018 — Benav ides Torres v Council
(Case T-245/18)
(2018/C 200/60)
Language of the case: Engl ish
Parties
Applicant: Antonio José Benavid es Torres (Venezuela) (represente d by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Cour t should:
—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 Januar y 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concer ning 
restr ictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Imp lementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 
22 Januar y 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concer ning restr ictive measures in view of the situation in 
Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concer n the applicant ; and
—order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.11.6.2018 EN Official Jour nal of the European Union C 200/47