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

Action brought on 18 December 2018 — Japan Tobacco v EUIPO — I.J. Tobacco Industry (I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY)

(Case T-743/18)

(2019/C 65/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Japan Tobacco, Inc. (Tokyo, Japon) (represented by: J. Gracia Albero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: I.J. Tobacco Industry FZE (Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates)

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 figurative mark in black and white I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY — Application for registration No 16 003 551

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 in Case R 979/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs deriving from the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Fourth Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 December 2018 — Repsol v EUIPO — Basic (BASIC)

(Case T-722/18)

(2019/C 54/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Repsol, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix and J. Erdozain López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark BASIC in colours blue, red, orange and white — European Union trade mark No 5 648 159

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2018 in Case R 178/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— admit the writ of summons with all the documents annexed;

— annul the contested decision;

— order Basic Aktiengesellschaft Lebensmittelhandel and EUIPO to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 72(6) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the part of the contested decision in which the Commission examined whether the alleged state aid measure confers an ‘attractiveness advantage’ should be characterised as a decision not to raise objections adopted following the preliminary examination procedure. Therefore, the applicant claims that the Commission should have initiated the formal investigation procedure because there were serious doubts as to the existence of an attractiveness advantage financed through state resources.
Action brought on 10 January 2019 — Activos e Inversiones Monterroso v SRB

(Case T-16/19)

(2019/C 72/58)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Activos e Inversiones Monterroso, SL (Pantoja, Spain) (represented by: S. Rodríguez Bajón, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Take note of the present action for annulment of the decision adopted by the Single Resolution Board of 31 October 2018, in the framework of this procedure [Ares (2017) 61995390] and, the appropriate legal steps having been taken, give judgment annulling the decision of 31 October 2018 and upholding the form of order sought, granting access to all documents included in the relevant administrative file.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. (1)

— In that connection, the applicant argues that, in the present case, protection of the public interest as regards the economic or monetary policy of the European Union or a Member State, protection of the commercial interests of a natural or legal person, protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, protection of the purpose of investigations, or the opposition of the originator of the information, are not applicable as exceptions to the disclosure of documents.

(1) OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and error of law committed by the Commission in finding that the operation by the applicant of certain advertising facilities covered by the contract of 16 July 1984 beyond their expiry date constitutes an advantage. — The Commission wrongly found there to be an economic advantage despite the compensation mechanism operated by the City of Brussels pursuant to its obligation to safeguard the economic balance of the contract. — The Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and erred in law by finding that the applicant benefited from a saving in terms of rents and tax, which constituted an advantage. — The contracts of 16 July 1984 and 14 October 1999 are not ‘purely commercial’, and the Altmark criteria were satisfied in the present case.
Action brought on 11 January 2019 — INC and Consorzio Stabile Sis v Commission

(Case T-24/19)

(2019/C 93/94)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: INC SpA (Turin, Italy) and Consorzio Stabile Sis SCpA (Turin) (represented by: H.-G. Kamann, F. Louis and G. Tzifa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission decision C(2018) 2435 final of 27 April 2018 in Cases SA. 49335 (2017/N) and SA.49336 (2017/N); (1)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law for each of the two separate instances of alleged State aid.

1. Plea in law in respect of Case SA.49336 (2017/N), alleging that, by adopting the contested decision, the Commission failed to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU and Articles 4(4) and 6 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (2) despite the existence of serious difficulties encountered during the preliminary examination procedure as regards the compatibility of the notified individual State aid in relation to an Italian toll motorway operator (Autostrade per l'Italia SpA) with the internal market. The applicants allege that the Commission thereby breached Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 4(3) of Regulation 2015/1589.

2. Plea in law in respect of Case SA.49335 (2017/N), alleging that, by adopting the contested decision, the Commission failed to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU and Articles 4(4) and 6 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, despite the existence of serious difficulties encountered during the preliminary examination procedure as regards the compatibility of the notified individual State aid in relation to a second Italian toll motorway operator (Società Iniziative Autostradali e Servizi Spa) with the internal market. The applicants allege that the Commission thereby breached Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.

(1) OJ 2018 C 379, p. 3.

(2) 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).
2.

Infringement of the applicants’ fundamental rights and guarantees, recognised both in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, inter alia: the right to property, the right to sound administration, the right to effective legal protection, the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty. — In that regard, it is claimed that the European Commission’s failure to fulfil its obligations had the result that, following the resolution of the institution Banca Privada de Andorra (Private Bank of Andorra, ‘the BPA’), all the shareholders, including the applicants, who own 75,52 % of the shares in the company, were deprived of all their capital without receiving any compensation in return or being able to oppose it. — It is also claimed that the inaction of the principal guarantor of the Agreement meant that the applicants’ right to receive, following the resolution of the BPA, what they would have obtained following ordinary insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings was not recognised in Andorran legislation. That right is recognised explicitly and exhaustively in the legislation of the European Union for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms, which the Principality of Andorra was required to transpose by virtue of the Agreement. — Lastly, neither (i) the right of the shareholders to an assessment of the situation in which they have been placed following the resolution of a financial institution and of the compensation, if any, which has been granted to them, nor (ii) the right to oppose, and defend themselves against, that result of the resolution of the institution, has been incorporated into the Andorran legal order.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 January 2019 — MSI Svetovanje v EUIPO — Industrial Farmaceutica Cantabria (nume)

(Case T-41/19)

(2019/C 112/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MSI Svetovanje, marketing, d.o.o (Vrhnika, Slovenia) (represented by: M. Maček, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Industrial Farmaceutica Cantabria, SA (Madrid, Spain)

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 nume — Application for registration No 15 120 355

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 in Case R 722/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred to MSI Svetovanje d.o.o.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 January 2019 — smart things solutions v EUIPO — Samsung Electronics (smart:)things)

(Case T-48/19)

(2019/C 103/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: smart things solutions GmbH (Seefeld, Germany) (represented by: R. Dissmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Samsung Electronics GmbH (Schwalbach am Taunus, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark smart:)things in colours black and green — European Union trade mark No 10 914 836

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2018 in Case R 835/2018-4

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;
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that, in the alternative, an incorrect legal categorisation in the statement of reasons was committed. By their fifth plea, which is alternative to the other pleas, the applicants submit that, even if the Court would ultimately agree with the defendant that the contested materials should be disclosed to other undertakings, the contested decision should still be annulled by virtue of errors in the statement of reasons. The defendant has applied Paragraph 35 of the settlement notice to give access to the contested materials. Paragraph 35 only refers to settlement submissions, and not settlement documents, which is the term used in the contested decision. In order to render the statement of reasons internally consistent, the contested decision should be redrafted so as to designate these materials as forming part of the settlement submission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 February 2019 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Plásticos Hidrosolubles (green cycles)

(Case T-78/19)

(2019/C 122/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: A. Marx and K. Bonhagen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Plásticos Hidrosolubles, SL (Rafelbuñol, Spain)

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 mark green cycles in colours blue, grey and white — European Union trade mark No 8 807 265

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2018 in Case R 778/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

— order Plásticos Hidrosolubles, SL to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (CNTX Trading)

(Case T-96/19)

(2019/C 139/80)

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: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark CNTX Trading — Application for registration No 15 368 939

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 986/2018-2

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;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 March 2019 — Kludi v EUIPO — Adlon Brand (ADLON)

(Case T-144/19)

(2019/C 139/109)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Kludi GmbH & Co. KG (Menden, Germany) (represented by: A. Zafar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Adlon Brand GmbH & Co. KG (Düren, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ADLON — Application for registration No 11 115 961

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2018 in Case R 1500/2018-2

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 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 7 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kahimbi Kasagwe v Council

(Case T-117/19)

(2019/C 139/97)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Delphin Kahimbi Kasagwe (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 7 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 7 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(a) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-124/19)

(2019/C 139/104)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 March 2019 — Sherpa Europe v EUIPO — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control (SHERPA NEXT)

(Case T-170/19)

(2019/C 155/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sherpa Europe, SL (Erandio, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, SL (Tres Cantos, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark SHERPA NEXT — Application for registration No 12 891 495

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2018 in Case R 523/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener, to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, and the costs incurred in the appeal before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Othman v Council

(Case T-58/19)

(2019/C 139/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;

— as a consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation for all of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea and one alternative plea, alleging the harm that she has allegedly suffered and for which the Council of the European Union is liable.

The main plea alleges that the restrictive measures at issue, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, they infringe the obligation to state reasons as laid down in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, second, they infringe the applicant’s right to property and the right to respect for her reputation. That infringement was the direct cause of significant material and non-material damage to her, consisting respectively of damage to her reputation, on the one hand, and breach of contracts, loss of material and loss of income, on the other, for which she claims to be entitled to compensation.

The alternative plea is based on the existence of a strict liability regime in the European Union.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 March 2019 — Puma v EUIPO (SOFTFOAM)

(Case T-182/19)

(2019/C 172/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark SOFTFOAM — Application for registration No 17 363 318

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2019 in Case R 1399/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 April 2019 — Knaus Tabbert v EUIPO — Carado (CaraTwo)

(Case T-203/19)

(2019/C 182/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Knaus Tabbert GmbH (Jandelsbrunn, Germany) (represented by: N. Maenz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carado GmbH (Leutkirch im Allgäu, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark CaraTwo — Application for registration No 15 170 145

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 in Case R 851/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject Carado GmbH’s opposition of 27 July 2016 regarding EU trade mark No 4 935 334 and German trade mark No 30 611 776 (Case B 2 742 768) in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law