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

Action brought on 20 May 2019 — BRF Singapore Foods v EUIPO — Tipiak (Sadia)

(Case T-309/19)

(2019/C 246/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: C. Mateu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tipiak (Saint-Aignan de Grand Lieu, France)

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 mark Sadia in colours black and white — Application for registration No 12 084 356

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 in Case R 1834/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order Tipiak to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of general EU principles of the sound administration and equal treatment;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 19 June 2019 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-370/19)

(2019/C 263/72)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 March 2019.

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the Commission Decision of 18 March 2019 on the participation of the National Regulatory Authority of Kosovo in the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications. (1)

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

1. First plea, alleging infringement of Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009, (2) in so far as that article permits only the Board of Regulators, the working groups and the Management Board to be open to the participation of regulatory authorities of third countries.

2. Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971, in so far as there is no agreement as to the Regulatory Authority of Kosovo’s participation in BEREC.

3. Third plea, alleging infringement of Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971, in so far as the European Commission has deviated from the established procedure for participation of the regulatory authorities of third countries in BEREC. This also led to the adoption of a legal act with no legal basis whatsoever and created legal obligations in respect of third parties, without specific powers having been conferred to that effect.

(1) OJ 2019 C 115, p. 26.

(2) OJ 2018 L 321, p. 1.
—

accordingly, declare that the applicant is entitled to the maintenance of the life annuity in question in so far as it was accrued and is being accrued on the basis of the legislation in force prior to Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber [of Deputies] and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and order the European Parliament to pay him all the sums unduly withheld, adjusted for inflation, together with statutory interest from the date of withholding until the date of payment;
—

find that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations with regard to ensuring that Romania fulfils its obligations as set out in Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA;
—

accordingly, declare that the applicant is entitled to the maintenance of the life annuity disbursed by the European Parliament in so far as it was accrued and is being accrued on the basis of the legislation in force prior to Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber [of Deputies] and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and order the European Parliament to pay him all the sums unduly withheld, adjusted for inflation, together with statutory interest from the date of withholding until the date of payment, and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and immediately to restore in full the original amount of the life annuity, and to pay compensation for all damages if and to the extent that damages are payable; and
—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality and non-discrimination, in particular in so far as, if the interpretation of PMO were to be followed, the minimum subsistence figure would depend on the country where the public official resided.

The applicant also seeks compensation for the non-material damage that she claims to have suffered as a result of irregularities allegedly committed by the PMO which make it impossible for her to live in dignity.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Brillux v EUIPO — Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe)

(Case T-402/19)

(2019/C 288/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Brillux GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Synthesa Chemie GesmbH (Perg, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark Freude an Farbe — International registration designating the European Union No 1 316 404

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2019 in Case R 1434/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 July 2019 — Asolo v EUIPO — Red Bull (FLÜGEL)

(Case T-509/19)

(2019/C 295/112)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Asolo LTD (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: W. Pors, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria)

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 FLÜGEL — European Union trade mark No 637 686

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2019 in Case R 201/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity;

— order EUIPO and Red Bull to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), read in conjunction with Article 7(7) of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the contested decision infringes the applicant’s acquired right to an increase in the multiplication factor applicable to the calculation of his remuneration corresponding to the value of the automatic step advancement.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 July 2019 — BPCE and Others v SRB

(Case T-489/19)

(2019/C 295/109)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: BPCE (Paris, France) and the 45 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 on the calculation of the 2019 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) in so far as it concerns the applicants;

— pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (‘SRM Regulation’), the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable: — Article 69(2), Article 70(1) and Article 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; — Article 4(2), Article 6, Article 7 and Article 10 of the Delegated Regulation and Annex I thereto; — Article 4 and Article 8(5) of the Implementing Regulation;

— order the defendant 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, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-466/19, Société générale and Others v SRB.
Action brought on 18 July 2019 — Del Valle Ruiz and Others v SRB

(Case T-512/19)

(2019/C 295/113)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Antonio Del Valle Ruiz (Mexico City, Mexico) and 36 other applicants (represented by: P. Rubio Escobar and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul the Decision (SRB/CM01/ARES (2018) 3664981) of the Single Resolution Board of 20 May 2019 agreeing not to draw up the definitive valuation report provided for in Article 20.11 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in the context of the resolution of Banco Popular and, consequently, order the Single Resolution Board to draw up that definitive valuation report in accordance with the applicable legislation;

— additionally, in accordance with Articles 133 and 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the defendant and the parties intervening in full or partial support of the form of order sought by it to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants invoke five pleas in law.

1. First plea, alleging failure to state or failure sufficiently to state the reasons on which the measure is based and, consequently, infringement of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

2. Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 20.11 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (1) in so far as the defendant states that the definitive valuation report on Banco Popular provided for in that provision will not be drawn up.

3. Third plea, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration provided for under Article 41 of the Charter, in so far as the Single Resolution Board deviated from the opinion of an independent expert on the need to draw up the definitive valuation report without substantiating its decision with any scientific or economic arguments.

4. Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the right to an effective legal remedy and rights of defence and, consequently, infringement of Article 2 TFEU, Article 47 of the Charter and Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution.

5. Fifth plea, alleging infringement of recital 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 and failure to comply with the ‘Meroni’ case-law, in so far as, first, the defendant has not been delegated the power to decide at its discretion whether or not it is appropriate to issue the definitive valuation report, and, secondly, and in any event, a decision such as the decision contested in the present action should have been overseen by the European Commission.

(1) 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).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 July 2019 — Artur Florêncio & Filhos, Affsports v EUIPO — Anadeco Gestion (sflooring)

(Case T-533/19)

(2019/C 312/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Artur Florêncio & Filhos, Affsports Lda (Sintra, Portugal) (represented by: D. Martins Pereira Soares, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anadeco Gestion, SA (Cartagena, 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 mark sflooring in colours black, white and grey — Application for registration No 11 943 586

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2019 in Case R 1870/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— totally admit this appeal

— completely revoke the contested decision;

— amend the contested decision, based on the grounding in this appeal and declare the granting of European Union trademark No 11 943 588 sflooring;

— condemn the EUIPO in the costs incurred by the appellant, including in the costs made in the case that run before EUIPO;

— condemn the other party to bear the appellant’s costs in the EUIPO proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Insufficiency of the proofs of genuine use of earlier trademark T-FLOORING
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 August 2019 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a braided cheese)

(Case T-571/19)

(2019/C 328/83)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Muratbey Gida Sanayi Ve Ticaret AȘ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional EU mark in black and white (Shape of a braided cheese) — Application for registration No 17 912 280

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 in Case R 107/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 19 July 2019 — VDV eTicket Service v Commission and INEA

(Case T-516/19)

(2019/C 319/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: VDV eTicket Service GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Bartosch, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare pursuant to Article 272 TFEU that the failure to acknowledge costs in the amount of EUR 407 443,04 via the letter at issue is unlawful;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of Article 263 TFEU;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is brought against the decision of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) ARES(2019)3151305 of 13 May 2019, in so far as it declares that the applicant’s costs in the amount of EUR 407 443,04 in the context of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme — Project: 636126 — European Travellers Club are not recoverable.

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

1. First plea: abuse of rights, as the defendants necessarily should have known of the incorrect allocation of costs — The defendants committed an abuse of rights on the ground that, first, they did not acknowledge certain subcontracting costs incurred by the applicant and, secondly, they should however have known from a number of documents that the applicant’s subcontracting costs were considerably higher than stated in Annex 2 to the grant agreement in question.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 August 2019 — The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann v EUIPO (Gymnastic or sports equipment)

(Case T-579/19)

(2019/C 337/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann GbR (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Hellmann-Cordner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Design at issue: Multiple application for registration of European Union designs (Gymnastic or sports equipment) — Registration No 5807179 0001-0012

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 in Case R 573/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the defendant’s decision of 16 January 2019 in so far as priority was not given to European Union design No 5807179 0001-0012; uphold the claimed priority of 26 October 2017 and provide for a corrected notification of the European Union design indicating the priority;

— reimburse it for the appeal fee;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— alternatively, conduct a hearing.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 August 2019 — Gothe and Kunz v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FAIR ZONE)

(Case T-589/19)

(2019/C 337/24)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicants: Oliver Gothe (Cologne, Germany), Martin Kunz (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Kruse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark FAIR ZONE — EU trade mark No 16 977 852

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 July 2019 in Case R 2253/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG’s opposition;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 September 2019 – Inova Semiconductors v EUIPO – Venta Servicio LED (ISELED)

(Case T-604/19)

(2019/C 363/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Inova Semiconductors GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Venta Servicio LED, SL (Martorell, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ISELED in the colours black, red, orange, yellow, green and blue – International registration designating the European Union No 1 343 583

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 June 2019 in Case R 2149/2018-1

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 by the plaintiff for the purposes of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of essential procedural requirements in Article 75(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 19 August 2019 — DV and Others v Commission

(Case T-576/19)

(2019/C 357/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: DV and 10 other applicants (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decisions determining the number of paid annual leave days for the applicants for 2019;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, raising an objection of illegality directed against Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for the same reasons as stated by the Court in the judgment of 4 December 2018, Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission, (T-518/16, EU:T:2018:873). According to the applicant, the defendant institution refused to apply that judgment while its effects are not suspended, which amounts to an unlawful failure to comply with a judgment of the General Court.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 August 2019 – Healios v EUIPO – Helios Kliniken (Healios)

(Case T-591/19)

(2019/C 363/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Healios KK (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: P. Venohr, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Helios Kliniken GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

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 mark Healios – Application for registration No 14 267 041

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2019 in Case R 341/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as the appeal was allowed and the contested application was rejected;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Sufficient proofs of genuine use has not been provided, especially for ‘medical and bacteriology services’;

— There is no or low similarity of the goods and services, especially when comparing medical and bacteriology services in class 5;