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

Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC BROKERAGE)

(Case T-521/18)

(2018/C 392/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BGC Partners LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: P. Walsh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankgirocentralen BGC AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BGC BROKERAGE — European Union trade mark No 3 812 195

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2186/2014-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the registration should be declared invalid for ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; banking services; financial services; financial clearing’ in class 36;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

— alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 August 2018 — OLX v EUIPO — Stra (STRADIA)

(Case T-508/18)

(2018/C 373/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: OLX BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Lodge, K. Gilbert, Solicitors and V. Jones, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stra Lda (Coimbra, Portugal)

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 STRADIA — Application for registration No 14 841 985

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 in joined Cases R 2228/2017-4 and R 2229/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— in the alternative, alter the contested decision to state that the Opposition should be remitted to the Opposition Division for it to reconsider the Opposition;

— order EUIPO to pay the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this Application and the costs before the Board. In the alternative, if the other party before the Board intervenes, then EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally pay the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this Application and the costs before the Board.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. The contested decision was based on certain manifest errors of assessment; furthermore, it failed to provide sufficient reasons and did not prove that an examination of the applicant’s merits was carried out in accordance with the principle of equal treatment.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 August 2018 — Billa v EUIPO — Boardriders IP Holdings (Billa)

(Case T-524/18)

(2018/C 399/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Billa AG (Wiener Neudorf, Austria) (represented by: J. Rether, M. Kinkeldey, J. Rosenhäger, S. Brandstätter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Boardriders IP Holdings LLC (Huntington Beach, California, 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 word mark Billa — Application for registration No 11 592 623

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2018 in Case R 2235/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 September 2018 — Local-e-motion v EUIPO — Volkswagen (WE)

(Case T-568/18)

(2018/C 427/121)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Local-e-motion GmbH (Dorsten, Germany) (represented by: D. Sprenger, 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

Applicant for the mark at issue: Applicant

Mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark WE with the colour indication ‘black, red and grey’ — Application for registration No 15 225 675

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 128/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the contested decision by rejecting the opposition;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials inasmuch as, first, the administration failed to weigh up the interests of the applicant against those of the service, in particular the fact that the applicant has worked for the Parliament for almost 30 years, has excellent relations with his line managers and has had very good appraisal reports and, secondly, the fact that that decision was rapidly publicised undermines his personality and his reputation.
Action brought on 28 September 2018 — BS (1) v Parliament

(Case T-593/18)

(2018/C 427/130)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BS (2) (represented by: M. Maes and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the notice of amendment No. 15, dated 10 August 2017, concerning the applicant’s pension rights;

— annul, so far as necessary, the decision to recover the purported overpayment of EUR 1 589,16 in respect of the months of September, October and November 2017 and EUR 4 815,16 as shown on the pension slip for December 2017;

— order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union inasmuch as the contested decisions are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) in so far as the defendant failed to give adequate reasons for its decision and failed to observe the applicant’s right to be heard and his right to have access to his file.

(1) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality

(2) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 September 2018 — Bernis and Others v ECB

(Case T-564/18)

(2018/C 436/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ernests Bernis (Jurmala, Latvia), Oļegs Fiļs (Jurmala), OF Holding SIA (Riga, Latvia) and Cassandra Holding Company SIA (Jurmala) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul decision ECB-SSM-2018-LVABL-2 WOANCA-2018-0007 of 11 July 2018 withdrawing the banking licence of ABLV Bank, AS;

— order the defendant to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the ECB incorrectly assumed that the conditions for a licence withdrawal were met.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to take into account the discretionary nature of the decision.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB committed a misuse of power.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB’s decision was not appropriately reasoned.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging a violation of essential procedural requirements.
2.

The second plea in law alleges misinterpretation of Article 17a of the Staff Regulations, in that the subject of the book does not concern ‘the work of the Union’, and therefore the applicant was not under an obligation to inform the Appointing Authority of his intention beforehand. The words ‘matter dealing with’ mean and refer to the content of the document, the purpose of which is to deal with ‘work of the Union’. This means that an official has to inform the Appointing Authority and obtain permission only if he would in any way be dealing with the work of the Union. The duty of the Appointing Authority that follows from this is to interpret strictly, not broadly what constitutes the ‘work of the Union’. Furthermore, it is claimed that: — no reasons for the decision have been given, as it is based simply on a mere opinion, not on facts or legal considerations; — the duty imposed by the Appointing Authority is more onerous than that laid down in the Staff Regulations; — the decision is based on the disproportionate exercise discretion; — ‘matter dealing with the work of the Union’ relates to a context which can be inferred, with regard to the workings of the Union, from other Guidelines; — as there is no reference to his work or to any other work of the Union in the book, the applicant has not failed in his duty of trust, loyalty and impartiality towards the Union; — from the case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular its judgment of the 6 March 2001 (Connolly v Commission (C-274/99 P, EU:C:2001:127, paragraphs 43 to 62), a number of relevant points emerge for the evaluation of the application and implementation of Article 17a of the Staff Regulations.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission adopted a decision vitiated by a manifest infringement of Article 9 of Regulation No 1/2003, read in conjunction with Article 102 TFEU, and of the principle of proportionality, in so far as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the evidence gathered and considered that the objections raised during proceeding AT.39816, which concerned the subordination, on the part of Gazprom, of gas deliveries to Poland to the obtaining of control of gas infrastructures in Poland, were not justified and, by reason of that error, accepted commitments of Gazprom which did not address the objections raised in that regard.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated substantive and procedural rights of the applicant pursuant to the Single Supervisory Mechanism Regulation, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the rule of law, in particular the right to access to file, the right to make use of remedies, the right to be represented by external counsel and the right to the confidentiality of communications with the counsel.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 November 2018 — Werner v EUIPO — Merck (fLORAMED)

(Case T-695/18)

(2019/C 25/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Stefan Werner (Baldham, Germany) (represented by: T. Büttner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark ‘fLORAMED’ — Registration No 15 336 639

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 September 2018 in Case R 197/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, as well as the decision of the Opposition Division of 24 November 2017, to reject the application for a trade mark in respect of all the goods claimed, which upheld the opposition brought by the opposing party on 7 October 2016.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 November 2018 — C.R.D.O.P. ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ v EUIPO — Airesano Foods (AIRESANO BLACK El ibérico de Teruel)

(Case T-696/18)

(2019/C 35/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Jamón de Teruel/Paleta de Teruel’ (Teruel, Spain) (represented by: F. Pérez Álvarez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Airesano Foods, SL (La Puebla de Valverde, Spain)

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: Application for EU figurative mark AIRESANO BLACK El ibérico de Teruel — Application for registration No 15 240 005

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2018 in Case R 88/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the parties to the proceedings to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons, vitiating (i) the Commission’s decision of 7 September 2018 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant under call for tender No HR/R1/PR/2017/059 entitled ‘Maintenance of security installations in buildings occupied and/or managed by the European Commission in Belgium and Luxembourg’ (OJ 2018/S 209-476275); and (ii) the decision of 17 September 2018 refusing to provide the applicant with the information that it had requested concerning the abovementioned call for tenders. The decision to reject the tender submitted by the applicant merely asserts that the tender did not offer the lowest price, whereas the price criterion was not the sole award criterion provided for in the tender specifications. An insufficiency of reasoning is tantamount to a failure to state reasons, and must be sanctioned by annulment of the decision.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 December 2018 — Aurea Biolabs v EUIPO — Avizel (AUREA BIOLABS)

(Case T-724/18)

(2019/C 54/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd (Cochin, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister, L. Oommen, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Avizel SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark AUREA BIOLABS — Application for registration No 15 836 737

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 September 2018 in Case R 814/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the payment of the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 December 2018 — Esim Chemicals v EUIPO — Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (ESIM Chemicals)

(Case T-713/18)

(2019/C 44/104)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Esim Chemicals GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: I. Rungg and I. Innerhofer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (Rome, Italy)

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 ESIM Chemicals — Application for registration No 14 465 331

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2018 in Case R 1267/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— resume the appeal proceedings and follow the arguments brought forward in the appeal R 1267/2018-5;

— in eventu, permit the application to reopen the proceedings of 29 October 2018, for a substantive decision by the Fifth Board of Appeal;

— order the defendant to bear the costs of the procedure.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 December 2018 — La Caixa v EUIPO — Imagic Vision (imagin bank)

(Case T-761/18)

(2019/C 72/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fundación bancaria caixa d’estalvis i pensions de Barcelona La Caixa (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, P. Román Maestre, D. Liern Cendrero, D. Gabarre Armengol and J. Rodriguez Fuensalida, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Imagic Vision, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark imagin bank — Application for registration No 14 861 108

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 October 2018 in Case R 1954/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Rule that the present action against the contested decision is admissible;

— Find that Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council was erroneously applied in that decision;

— Grant protection in respect of all goods and services sought in the application for registration of European Union figurative trade mark No 14 861 108, ‘imagin bank’, in Classes 9, 36 and 38;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs associated with these proceedings, including the representation costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 December 2018 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT)

(Case T-725/18)

(2019/C 65/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: R. Hoy, Solicitor and J. Bowhill, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BRENT — Application for registration No 16 710 014

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2018 in Case R 624/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 8 April 2019 — SJ v Commission

(Case T-701/18)

(2019/C 187/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SJ (represented by: J. MacGuill, Solicitor and E. Martin-Vignerte, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s refusal to grant access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), taken by confirmatory decision C(2018) 6642 final of 4 October 2018, and notified to the applicant on 8 October 2018;

— in relation to costs, order that each party should bear their own costs or that the defendant bear the applicant’s costs were the applicant to succeed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that, by relying on the general presumption of non-disclosure, the defendant effectively shifted the burden of proof and afflicted the applicant with an impossible burden of proof to discharge, in contradiction with stated case-law.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the existence of an overriding public interest, in breach of the principles of the relevant case-law.

(1) Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p.43).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 December 2018 — ABLV Bank v SRB

(Case T-758/18)

(2019/C 82/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the SRB of 17 October 2018 with respect to ABLV Bank as regards the SRB’s refusal to recalculate and to repay that bank’s ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund;

— order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to give sufficient weight to the pro rata temporis nature of Fund contributions.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to take into account the SRB’s own express recognition that Fund contributions are refundable on a pro rata temporis basis.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to take into account the express recognition in Article 12(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2015/63 (1) that only partial payments are owed if the conditions are met only during part of the relevant year.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB erroneously relied on Article 70(4) of Regulation 806/2014. (2)

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB relied on an erroneous interpretation of Article 12(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2015/63.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the nemo auditur principle.

9. Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to take into account the relevance of its prior actions.

10. Tenth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015, L 11, p. 44).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).