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

Action brought on 27 February 2020 — Collibra v EUIPO — Dietrich (COLLIBRA)

(Case T-128/20)

(2020/C 129/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Collibra (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Renck, A. Bothe, lawyers and I. Junkar, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hans Dietrich (Starnberg, 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 word mark COLLIBRA — Application for registration No 16 787 772

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 in Case R 737/2019-1

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 by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 27 March 2020 — Ighoga Region 10 v Commission

(Case T-161/20)

(2020/C 175/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ighoga Region 10 eV (Ingolstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Bartosch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should declare that the defendant infringed its obligations under the TFEU in that, even after almost 2 ¾ years have elapsed since the complaint has been lodged and, following the request to adopt a final decision to close the procedure, the defendant did not take a formal decision in accordance with one of the possible alternatives set out in Article 4 of the Rules of Procedure in State aid cases, but rather failed to act.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is brought against the Commission’s failure to act in connection with the adoption of a decision concerning the applicant’s complaint of 4 July 2017 on EU State aid in case SA.48582 — presumed State aid for Maritim-Gruppe and KHI Immobilien GmbH.
Action brought on 26 February 2020 — Applia v Commission

(Case T-139/20)

(2020/C 161/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Applia — Home Appliance Europe (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Desmedt, L. Salernitano and K. Olsthoorn, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the following parts of the contested act: (i) Articles 1(b) and 2(b) of Annex VI in the part where they provide that ‘these values are considered as the declared values for the purpose of the verification procedure in Annex IX’; (ii) paragraph 2(a) of Annex IX in the part where it states that ‘declared values’ correspond to those ‘values given in the technical documentation’; and (iii) paragraph 2(b) of Annex IX;

— annul Table 9 on ‘Verification tolerances’ of Annex IX in the part where it contains parameters that are included in Annex VI and are not listed in Annex V, namely: ‘EW, full, EW,½, EW,¼, EWD, full, EWD,½’ and ‘WW, full, WW,½ WW, ¼, WWD, full, WWD,½’; and

— order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2014 (1).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging the contested act violates Articles 3, 12 and 16 of the Framework Regulation (2) and the Commission acted ultra vires by introducing inconsistent requirements as regards the technical documentation suppliers have to upload in the database and the verification procedure market surveillance authorities are entitled to carry out.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the contested act infringes the principle of legal certainty and of equality of treatment because it fails to establish a clear and univocal regulatory framework putting the suppliers in the impossibility to determine their duties, as regards the data to be provided in the technical documentation; and the applicable verification procedure to assess the accuracy of the data.

(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2014 of 11 March 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of household washing machines and household washer-dryers and repealing Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1061/2010 and Commission Directive 96/60/EC (OJ 2019 L 315, p. 29).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU (OJ 2017 L 198, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 March 2020 — Bachmann v EUIPO (LICHTYOGA)

(Case T-157/20)

(2020/C 191/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gabriele Bachmann (Bad Grönenbach, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark LICHTYOGA — Application for registration No 18 054 208

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2019 in Case R 2317/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the appeal;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 March 2020 — Griba v CPVO (Stark Gugger)

(Case T-181/20)

(2020/C 191/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Griba Baumschulgenossenschaft landwirtschaftliche Gesellschaft (Terlan, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Community Plant Variety at issue: Apple variety Stark Gugger — Community Plant Variety Right No. 2011/1918

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 24 January 2020 in Case A 008/2018

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order CPVO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 57(3) of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;
—

declare unlawful the Commission’s failure to prevent or censure: — the refusal of 28 October 2019 of the president of the polling station to publish a communication informing the staff of the agreement reached on 14 October 2019 between FFPE, R&D, Solidarité européenne, TAO-AFI, USF-L and U4U for the sharing of the representativeness of their common list ‘Ensemble au Luxembourg’; — the publication by the polling station, on an unspecified date during the ballot, of that agreement, which did not indicate that some OSPs had combined or grouped together and the number of candidates put forward by each of them; — the absence of indication of the OSP represented by each of the candidates on list No. 3 ‘Ensemble au Luxembourg’ to any of the OSPs which presented it, even though they belonged to different trade union families and some of them were based in Brussels and had no record of that list; — the results of the elections published by polling station note of 26 November 2019; — the composition of the Luxembourg local section of the Staff Committee following the November 2019 elections; — decisions on the appointment by the Luxembourg local section of the Staff Committee of its representatives on the Central Committee;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 March 2020 — Tikal Marine Systems v EUIPO — Ultra Safety Systems (Tikal Tef-Gel)

(Case T-185/20)

(2020/C 191/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tikal Marine Systems GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany) (represented by: M. Mahnkopf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ultra Safety Systems Inc. (Mangonia Park, Florida, United States)

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 Tikal Tef-Gel — European Union trade mark No 12 971 461

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2020 in Case R 2500/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 November 2018;

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the trade mark at issue valid;

— order EUIPO and intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 April 2020 — Target Brands v EUIPO — The a.r.t. company b&s (ART CLASS)

(Case T-202/20)

(2020/C 201/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Target Brands Inc. (Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The a.r.t. company b&s, SA (Quel, 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 word mark ART CLASS — Application for registration No 16 888 695

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2020 in Case R 1597/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition decision in respect of all of the remaining contested goods;

— alternatively, remit the matter to the EUIPO for re-consideration;

— order to pay its costs incurred in connection with this appeal, the appeal before the Board and the Opposition.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council
—

Stay the proceedings in the case and refer the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling under the expedited procedure: (1) Does the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union revoke the EU citizenship of UK nationals who, prior to the end of the transition period, have exercised their right to free movement and their right to settle freely in the territory of another Member State? (2) If so, is the combination of Articles 2, 3, 10, 12 and 27 of the withdrawal agreement, point 6 of the preamble thereto and Articles 18, 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as allowing those UK nationals to retain, without exception, the rights of EU citizenship that they enjoyed prior to the withdrawal of their country from the European Union? (3) If the second question is answered in the negative, does the withdrawal agreement not infringe Articles 18, 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in so far as it does not contain a provision allowing them to retain those rights without exception? (4) In any event, does Article 127(1)(b) of the withdrawal agreement not infringe Articles 18, 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in so far as it deprives EU citizens who have exercised their right to free movement and their right to settle freely in the United Kingdom of their right to vote and to stand as candidates in municipal elections in that country and, if the General Court and the Court of Justice read those provisions in the same way as the French Conseil d’État (Council of State), does that infringement not extend to UK nationals who have exercised their right to free movement and their right to settle freely in another Member State?
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Pfizer (RUXYMLA)

(Case T-248/20)

(2020/C 209/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark RUXYMLA — Application for registration No 17 865 739

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2020 in Case R 1878/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 May 2020 — Capella v EUIPO — Cobi.bike (GOBI)

(Case T-286/20)

(2020/C 222/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Capella EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: R. Klenke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cobi.bike GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU trade mark GOBI — Application for registration No 17 168 089

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2020 in Case R 1685/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 May 2020 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Kerckhoff (APO)

(Case T-282/20)

(2020/C 215/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Apologistics GmbH (Markkleeberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Markus Kerckhoff (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark APO — European Union trade mark No 9 273 103

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 in Case R 982/2019-5

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)(c) of Regulation EU No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 19 March 2020 on the calculation of the 2016 ex-ante contributions due by Banco Cooperativo Español S.A., Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (formerly: Vorarl-berger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG), and Portigon AG to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2020/16), including the annexes thereto, and in any event in so far as that decision, including the annexes thereto, concerns the contribution to be paid by the applicant;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 May 2020 — Klaus Berthold v EUIPO — Thomann (HB Harley Benton)

(Case T-284/20)

(2020/C 222/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Klaus Berthold Besitzgesellschaft GmbH & Co. KG (Thalhausen, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thomann GmbH (Burgebrach, Germany)

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 HB Harley Benton — International registration designating the European Union No 1 380 752

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 March 2020 in Case R 1359/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and allow the opposition against the registration of international registration No 1 380 752 in the European Union for the goods in Class 25;

— order EUIPO to refuse the registration of international registration No 1 380 752 in the European Union for the goods in Class 25;

— order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO and, if appropriate, order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of legal certainty and of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials. The applicants submit that they that they could not have been aware of the exceptional reduction of the correction coefficient applied to their remuneration for the reference period with retroactive effect. In their opinion, as the conditions laid down by Article 85 of the Staff Regulations have not been met, the Commission cannot request repayment from them of several months’ remuneration on the basis of the adjustment of the correction coefficient with retroactive effect.
1.

First plea in law, refuting the accuracy of the facts adduced and alleging distortion of the evidence, manifest errors of assessment, insufficient reasoning and breach of the duty to state reasons. The applicant claims, inter alia, the distortion of the only piece of evidence against him in so far as the Appointing Authority alleges an ‘unauthorised price negotiation’ on the basis of a single email, even though its very wording shows that the applicant merely transmitted to the contractor, in full compliance with the framework contract, a clear and unequivocal instruction. That was far from being a ‘negotiation’, which would have required, at the very least, a series of discussions with a view to reaching an agreement with, potentially, waivers from both parties. The applicant adds that the exchanges between him and the contractor merely demonstrate that the work required to establish a final version of the questionnaire and related services is cooperative and repetitive and in no way constitutes a ‘negotiation’. The Appointing Authority thus drew conclusions from non-established facts and committed a manifest error of assessment.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 May 2020 — Facegym v EUIPO (FACEGYM)

(Case T-289/20)

(2020/C 247/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Facegym Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark FACEGYM — Application for registration No. W1 466 456

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2020 in Case R 70/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

alternatively

— alter the contested decision so that it is now held that the allegedly offending goods and services of the International Trade Mark Registration do not offend against Article 7(1)(b) or (c);

— order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application and the costs below.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 June 2020 — Robert Klingel v EUIPO (MEN+)

(Case T-345/20)

(2020/C 247/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Robert Klingel OHG (Pforzheim, Germany) (represented by M. Zick, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade mark ‘MEN+’ — Application No 17 985 949

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2020 in Case R 1906/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as the applicant is adversely affected;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO (Form of a pattern of a sole of a shoe)

(Case T-365/20)

(2020/C 255/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Birkenstock Sales GmbH (Linz am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: C. Menebröcker und K. Middelhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for an EU position mark (Form of a pattern of a sole of a shoe) — Application for registration No 14 576 284

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2020 in Case R 1706/2019-1

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 27 May 2020 — TEAG v Commission

(Case T-315/20)

(2020/C 247/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: TEAG Thüringer Energie AG (Erfurt, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant's decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the merger ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ compatible with the internal market, Case M.8871 (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.