ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/41

Action brought on 14 December 2015 — Justice & Environment v Commission

(Case T-727/15)

(2016/C 059/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Association Justice & Environment, z.s. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Podskalská, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the decision of the European Commission, Directorate General for Environment, dated 19 August 2015, reference number Ref GestDem No 2015/4284, by which a request for access to documents has been refused and the decision of the Secretary General on behalf of the European Commission dated 15 October 2015, reference number Ares(2015)4311297, by which a confirmatory application has been declined, null and void; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant contends that the contested decisions are unlawful because they are contrary to: (i) Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex Article 255 TEC); (ii) Article 4 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1); (iii) Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (2); and (iv) The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) in conjunction with the Council Decision of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (2005/370/EC) (3)

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

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ L 264, 2006, p. 13).

(3) OJ L 124, 2005, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/26

Action brought on 18 December 2015 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of four interlaced letters G)

(Case T-753/15)

(2016/C 078/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guess? IP Holder LP (Los Angeles, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark representing four interlaced letters G — International registration designating the European Union No 1 090 048

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2015 in Case R 1703/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings;

— order Guess to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

Pleas in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested acts infringe the right of defence and the right to a fair hearing provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’) in that they were adopted without the applicant being provided with the possibility to effectively exercise its rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard and the right to benefit from a procedure allowing him to effectively request his removal from the lists of persons covered by the restrictive measures
2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure by the Civil Service Tribunal, contrary to the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to give adequate reasons for its judgment on the questions arising from the selection process.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the application of the appellant was admissible and grounded as it respects the correspondence between the pleas, reasons and facts mentioned within the complaint sent during the administrative procedure and the ones presented in detail to the Civil Service Tribunal.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/26

Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-695/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-104/15, U (*) v Commission

( Official Journal of the European Union C 441 of 28 November 2016 , as re-published for reasons of protection of personal data)

(2017/C 095/35)

On page 4, in the table of contents, and on page 28, ‘U (*)’ is replaced by ‘RN (*)’.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, in that the various technical audit reports invariably concluded that the resources were used by the applicant in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and sound financial management. It follows from this that REA could not claim to have validly found that the applicant had committed irregularities in connection with other grants such as to justify either the termination or suspension of all payments in the contested grant contracts. Moreover, participation in the grant agreements constitutes the only source of funding for the applicant and the absence of new European projects would inevitably lead to bankruptcy.
Official Journal of the European Union

Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-445/16

( Official Journal of the European Union C 364 of 3 October 2016 )

(2018/C 373/23)

The notice in the Official Journal in Case T-445/16 —Schniga v CPVO (Gala Schnico), should read as follows:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/40

Action brought on 26 January 2016 — M.I. Industries v OHIM — Natural Instinct (Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended)

(Case T-30/16)

(2016/C 106/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: M.I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, United States) (represented by: T. Elias, Barrister, B. Cookson, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended’ — Application for registration No 11 438 074

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2015 in Case R 2944/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— the applicant’s opposition No B 002 181 272 be upheld and NIL’s application No 11 438 074 be refused; alternatively, declare that the applicant has proved use its CTMs No 5 208 418 and No 5 208 201 for the purposes of the opposition No B 002 181 272, and remit the matter to the Fifth Board of Appeal for a determination of the issues arising in respect of each of those marks under Article 8(1)(b) CTMR; in the further alternative, remit the matter back to the Fifth Board of Appeal in its entirety;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 42(2) Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy. — The Commission decided to exclude the expenditure from EU financing although there was no breach of EU or national law. It wrongly assumed that the application of a lower maximum age in the case of support for early retirement required a change of a rural development programme within the meaning of Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/39

Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Michał Wieromiejczyk v EUIPO (Tasty Puff)

(Case T-64/16)

(2016/C 111/47)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Michał Wieromiejczyk (Pabianice, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Tasty Puff’ — Application for registration No 13 072 061

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2015 in Case R 3058/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action to be well founded;

— annul the contested decision;

— amend the contested decision by requiring EUIPO to grant the right to Trade Mark No 13072061 ‘Tasty Puff’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

Breach of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/42

Action brought on 29 February 2016 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-91/16)

(2016/C 136/58)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, Commission Decision C(2015)9413 of 17 December 2015, notified on 18 December 2015, concerning the reduction of the contribution from the European Social Fund for the Sicily Operational Programme (Programma Operativo Sicilia) which forms part of the Community Support Framework for Community structural assistance in the regions falling under Objective 1 in Italy (POR Sicilia 2000-2006), and, consequently, find that the final request for payment presented by the Italian authorities should be upheld in its entirety by the Commission. It also asks that the Commission be ordered to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. The decision was adopted as a result of an unlawful duplication of the controls made pursuant to Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/99 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1), which were re-opened and repeated in the audit of 2008 despite those controls having been undertaken and concluded, at least in so far as all of the expenditure certified on 31 December 2006 is concerned, in the audits of 2005 and 2006.

2. The contested decision is vitiated by an infringement of the principle of proper administration because the Commission communicated the results of the 2008 audit with a delay of 18 months after the task had been completed.

3. The contested decision misrepresents the facts because it ignores the fact that, in the period following the audits of 2005 and 2006, the error rate literally collapsed from 53,13 % to 3,05 % in 2007, and to 1,45 % in 2008 and 2009.

4. The contested decision infringes the principle of proportionality because it fails to take account of the fact that the certified expenditure for the three years 2007 to 2009, affected by a minimal error rate, was equal to approximately half the total value of the programme covered by the ESF.

5. The contested decision is unfounded in fact and in law, because it extends to the following three years the finding of systematic deficiencies which arose and were resolved in the period up to 31 December 2006, without undertaking any specific verification in that regard.
—

Annul the Parliament’s decision, set out in the letter of 18 December 2015, by which it informed the applicant of the rejection of its tender submitted under public procurement procedure No 06B40/2015/M073 to the Mediterranean food concession in the Altiero Spinelli Building occupied by the European Parliament in Brussels;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/17

Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Delfin Wellness v EUIPO — Laher (infrared cabins and saunas)

(Case T-114/16)

(2016/C 165/19)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Delfin Wellness GmbH (Leonding, Austria) (represented by: T. Riedler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sabine Laher (Weyer, Austria)

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: Community design No 1058812-0001, No 1058812-0002 and No 1058812-0003

Contested decision: Decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 in Cases R 849/2014-3, R 850/2014-3 und R 851/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decisions of the Third Board of Appeal in Cases R 849/2014-3, R 850/2014-3 und R 851/2014-3;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of all the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 64 Regulation No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 65[(1)](f) of Regulation No 6/2002;
—

annul the decision Ares(2015)5632670, of 7 December 2015, of the Secretariat General, rejecting the confirmatory application submitted by the applicant by its letter dated 15 September 2015, in which the applicant, pursuant to (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 (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), requested access to documents concerning the application of a Cypriot producer's organization for the registration of the denomination ‘Halloumi’ under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1), and
First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 907 and 909 of Regulation No 2454/93 and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The applicant submits that the legal effects of the judgment of 19 March 2013 in Firma Van Parys v Commission (T-324/10, EU:T:2013:136) in favour of the present applicant are, in themselves, sufficient. Consequently, no new Commission decision is required to vitiate the illegality found by the Court and the applicant must benefit from the operation of Article 909 of Regulation No 2454/93.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/30

Action brought on 24 March 2016 — Claranet Europe v EUIPO — Claro (claranet)

(Case T-129/16)

(2016/C 175/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Claranet Europe Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: G. Crown and D. Farnsworth, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Claro SA (São Paulo, Brazil)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark in red ‘claranet’ — Application for registration No 11 265 113

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 in Case R 803/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO (and if applicable, any intervener) to bear its own and pay the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/31

Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Piper Verlag v EUIPO (THE TRAVEL EPISODES)

(Case T-164/16)

(2016/C 200/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Piper Verlag GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: F. Oster, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word elements ‘THE TRAVEL EPISODES’ — Application No 13 687 371

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 in Case R 1099/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision in such a way that registration of the word/figurative mark ‘THE TRAVEL EPISODES’ as an EU trade mark at the European Union Intellectual Property Office is ordered.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/37

Action brought on 23 March 2016 — PayPal v EUIPO — Hub Culture (VENMO)

(Case T-132/16)

(2016/C 191/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: PayPal, Inc. (San Jose, California, United States) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer and I. Junkar, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hub Culture Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda)

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: EU word mark ‘VENMO’ — EU trade mark No 9 509 357

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 in Case R 2974/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that the costs of the proceeding be borne by EUIPO and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

Plea in law
—

order the Commission to take a new decision with respect to the applicant’s proposal, taking account of the judgment of the General Court, within three months from the date of the judgment;
No investigation of exports from Switzerland

The applicant claims that anti-dumping duties may be extended only if the conditions laid down in Article 13 of the basic antidumping regulation (‘the Basic Regulation’) are satisfied. This meant, in particular, that an investigation of circumvention was required to be initiated and carried out effectively for the exports at issue.

Since the applicant exports solar modules from Switzerland into the EU but, contrary to Article 13(3) of the Basic Regulation, no investigation was initiated for Switzerland, the applicant’s solar modules could not be subject to measures.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/35

Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Matratzen Concord v EUIPO (Ganz schön ausgeschlafen)

(Case T-225/16)

(2016/C 232/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before the EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Ganz schön ausgeschlafen’ — Application for registration No 13 610 316

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 24 February 2016 in Case R 1234/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 April 2016 — Klassisk investment v EUIPO (CLASSIC FINE FOODS)

(Case T-194/16)

(2016/C 222/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Klassisk investment Ltd (Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: International registration of the figurative mark with the word components ‘CLASSIC FINE FOODS’ designating the European Union — International registration No 1 222 164

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 29 January 2016 in Case R 1970/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/38

Action brought on 22 April 2016 – Andrea Incontri v EUIPO – HigicoL (ANDREA INCONTRI)

(Case T-197/16)

(2016/C 243/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Andrea Incontri Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and J. Graffer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HigicoL, SA (Baguim do monte, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANDREA INCONTRI’ – Application for registration No 10 985 323

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2016 in Case R 146/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— totally alter the contested decision;

— as a consequence, accept EUTM Application No 10 985 323 ANDREA INCONTRI in its entirety;

— order the other parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those of the EUIPO opposition and appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/35

Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Bodegas Verdúguez v EUIPO (TRES TOROS 3)

(Case T-206/16)

(2016/C 251/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Verdúguez, SL (Villanueva de Alcardete, Spain) (represented by: J. García Domínguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TRES TOROS 3’ — Application for registration No 12 796 926

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 in Case R 407/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— admit its action against the contested decision, annul that decision and hold that: 1) the prohibition in Article 7(1)(j) does not apply to the EU trade mark applied for; 2) in the alternative, and solely if the Court should consider that the prohibition in Article 7(1)(j) is applicable to the mark applied for, hold that that prohibition applies only with respect to ‘wine’ goods, thus maintaining the rejection solely in that regard and restoring the validity of the mark for the remainder of the goods claimed in Class 33.

— order EUIPO to pay the costs and to reimburse the appeal fees paid by the applicant to EUIPO, as the case may be.

Plea in law