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

Action brought on 12 August 2022 — Melnichenko v Council

(Case T-498/22)

(2022/C 368/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aleksandra Melnichenko (St. Moritz, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Lansky, P. Goeth and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/883 of 3 June 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions under-mining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) as well as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/878 of 3 June 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (2) in so far as those acts concern the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation unlawfully infringes upon the applicant’s rights protected under Articles 7, 17 and 45 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant has not been given the right to be heard.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/883 of 3 June 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions under-mining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 153, p. 92).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/878 of 3 June 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 153, p. 15).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 August 2022 — UGA Nutraceuticals v EUIPO — BASF (OMEGOR)

(Case T-495/22)

(2022/C 380/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: UGA Nutraceuticals Srl (Gubbio, Italy) (represented by: M. Riva, J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BASF AS (Oslo, Norway)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor 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 mark OMEGOR — International registration designating the European Union No 1 409 659

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 June 2022 in Case R 1168/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 August 2022 — Dr. Rudolf Liebe Nachfolger v EUIPO — Bit Beauty (ayuna LESS IS BEAUTY)

(Case T-490/22)

(2022/C 368/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Rudolf Liebe Nachfolger GmbH & Co. KG (Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany) (represented by: E. Stolz, U. Stelzenmüller, H. Meyerfeldt and J. Weiser, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bit Beauty, SL (Barcelona, 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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ayuna LESS IS BEAUTY — International registration designating the European Union No 11 369 553

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2022 in Case R 982/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold opposition B 003088668 in its entirety and reject the IR No. 11 369 553 designating the EU;

— order the defendant, and, as the case may be, the IR holder/possible intervener to pay the costs relating to the present proceedings and those incurred for the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
—

The reasons for listing of the applicant contain a number of terms which are defined neither in the Contested Acts nor in jurisprudence. In view of this, their meaning is not clear to the applicant, and he cannot unambiguously understand them and decide how to act in the context of the measures taken against him by the Council.
Action brought on 29 June 2022 — DVB Bank v SRB

(Case T-401/22)

(2022/C 380/15)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DVB Bank SE (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 September 2022 — Sanity Group v EUIPO — AC Marca Brands (Sanity Group)

(Case T-541/22)

(2022/C 408/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sanity Group GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: B. Koch and V. Wolf, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AC Marca Brands, SL (Barcelona, 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 Sanity Group — Application for registration No 18 110 653

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2022 in Case R 2107/2021-1

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 15 September 2022 — XNT v EUIPO — Exane (EXANE)

(Case T-568/22)

(2022/C 418/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: XNT ltd. (St. Julian’s, Malta) (represented by: A. Renck, C. Stöber and M.-A. de Dampierre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Exane (Paris, France)

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 word mark EXANE — European Union trade mark No 14 289 433

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2022 in Case R 2093/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in the event that the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern with horses)

(Case T-547/22)

(2022/C 418/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, R. Wessman and S. Ljungblad, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Schwäbisch Hall, 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 pattern mark representing a checked pattern with horses — Application for registration No 18 161 210

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2022 in Case R 1734/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the applicant and the opponent] are similar’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence. The applicant relies, in particular, on the right to be heard, in so far as the members of the Investigation and Disciplinary Office (IDOC), to whom the powers of the appointing authority (‘the Appointing Authority’) were delegated during the procedure and who drafted the inquiry report, the conclusions of which were questioned by the Disciplinary Board, then played a decisive role in the adoption of the decision taken, in a non-transparent way, by the Appointing Authority.
Action brought on 16 August 2022 — Vleuten Insects and New Generation Nutrition v Commission

(Case T-500/22)

(2022/C 424/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Vleuten Insects vof (Hoogeloon, Netherlands), New Generation Nutrition BV (Helvoirt, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Carbonnelle, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the Commission Implementing Decision of 2 June 2022 terminating the procedure for authorising the placing on the market of Alphitobius diaperinus larva as a novel food without updating the Union list of novel foods; (1)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 6(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/2469, (2) insofar the decision was adopted without the procedural requirements and guarantees set out under that provision having been complied with, making the decision illegal.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of good administration and of Article 41 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and more particularly: — breach of the duty of procedural loyalty and of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations (first part of the second plea); — breach of applicable procedural requirements and of the duty to provide a valid and legally admissible statement of reasons (second part of the second plea); and — breach of the principle of proportionality (third part of the second plea).

3. Third plea in law, a subsidiary plea to the effect that, if neither the first plea nor the second plea is upheld, the applicants submit a plea of illegality based on Article 277 TFEU against Article 10(6) of Regulation 2015/2283 (3) and Article 6 of Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/2469, alleging that those provisions are void because they are in breach of the principle of legal certainty and of the principle of equal treatment.

(1) Document reference: C(2022)3478.

(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2469 of 20 December 2017 laying down administrative and scientific requirements for applications referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel foods (OJ 2017 L 351, p. 64).

(3) Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001 (OJ 2015 L 327, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 September 2022 — KHG v EUIPO — Dreams (Dreamer)

(Case T-608/22)

(2022/C 441/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: KHG GmbH & Co. KG (Schönefeld, Germany) (represented by: D. Gehnen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dreams Ltd (High Wycombe, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application EU figurative mark Dreamer — Application for registration No 17 652 165

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2022 in Case R 1975/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, if it joins the proceedings, the other party to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 August 2022 — Sberbank Europe v Council and Others

(Case T-524/22)

(2022/C 432/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sberbank Europe AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare void pursuant to Art. 264 TFEU the contested decision, including, if applicable, the Commission’s and the Council’s approval of such contested decision; (1) and

— order the SRB, the Commission and the Council to bear the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the SRB exceeded its competence. — The applicant claims that the contested decision presupposes an ability of the SRB to make binding determinations as to the insolvency status of the parent entity. This aspect is solely a matter for the competent national courts.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB infringed essential procedural requirements with respect to the applicant. — The applicant claims, inter alia, that the contested decision was not notified properly to the applicant as its true addressee.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a number of substantive defects. These defects include that the conditions of Article 18 SRMR (2) were not met.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to consider appropriate alternative measures pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) SRMR.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to choose the least burdensome option in the context of resolution action with respect to the applicant.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated substantive and procedural rules governing the sale of business tool, including Article 20 SRMR.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality and committed a manifest error of assessment with respect to potential alternative solutions.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to contact the applicant’s or Sberbank Croatia’s management in relation to Article 13(3) SRMR.

9. Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to follow the resolution plan without any plausible justification.

(1) The decision contested by the applicant in this case is the SRB’s decision of 1 March 2022 (SRB/EES/2022/21) with respect to the Croatian subsidiary of the applicant (Sberbank banka d.d.).

(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).
Action brought on 12 September 2022 — Herbert Smith Freehills v Commission

(Case T-570/22)

(2022/C 451/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Herbert Smith Freehills LLP (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Wytinck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in its entirety the decision of the European Commission C(2022) 4816 final of 3 July 2022, pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; (1)

— order that the defendant pay the applicant’s costs in these proceedings.

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 Articles 2(1) and 2(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Commission failed to provide access to information from the relevant databases that qualifies as documents falling within the scope of the applicant’s requests, and the Commission failed to identify and provide access to all documents falling within the scope of the applicant’s requests, including the intermediate documents containing information extracted from the relevant databases.

2. Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons, as required by Article 296 TFEU.

(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 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 October 2022 — M&T 1997 v EUIPO — VDS Czmyr Kowalik (Door and window handles)

(Case T-654/22)

(2022/C 472/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: M&T 1997, a.s. (Dobruška, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Dobřichovský, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: VDS Czmyr Kowalik sp.k. (Świętochłowice, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: European Union design No 2 138 008-0031

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2022 in Case R 29/2022-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— modify the contested decision so that the appeal brought by the applicant is upheld, the application for invalidity is dismissed and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;

— order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 25(1)b of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 6 thereof;
1.

First, second and third pleas in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons, manifest error of assessment and breach of the principle of sound financial management. — The Commission breached its obligation to state reasons, made a manifest error of assessment, and breached the principle of sound financial management by basing its Decision No C(2022) 5863 final of 9 August 2022, under which the applicant is required to pay 27 726,44 euros plus interest, on — the first annual revised report of the Executive Agency for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (‘EASME’) of 25 April 2018, adopted after an on-site review that took place on in March 2018; — EASME’s letter of 15 June 2018, indicating for the first time its intention to terminate the grant agreement bearing the reference 739280 ELECTRIC_AXLE, concluded between the applicant and EASME, and the statement of reasons for that letter; — EASME’s letter of 8 October 2018 effectively terminating the grant agreement and the statement of reasons for that letter, and — EASME’s final report of 31 July 2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 October 2022 — Mood Media Netherlands v EUIPO — Tailoradio (RADIO MOOD In-store Radio, made easy)

(Case T-663/22)

(2023/C 7/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Mood Media Netherlands (Naarden, Netherlands) (represented by: A.-M. Pecoraro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tailoradio Srl (Milan, Italy)

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 the EU figurative mark RADIO MOOD In-store Radio, made easy in the colours grey, orange and white — Application for registration No 16 150 708

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 August 2022 in Case R 1853/2018-5

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 21 November 2022 — Odeon Cinemas Holdings v EUIPO — Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (OSCAR)

(Case T-727/22)

(2023/C 24/87)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Odeon Cinemas Holdings Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Axel Karnøe Søndergaard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (Beverly Hills, California, United States)

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 word mark OSCAR — European Union trade mark No 2 931 038

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2022 in Case R 1841/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law