ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/50

Action brought on 14 November 2017 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Beats Electronics (i.Beat jess)

(Case T-749/17)

(2018/C 022/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong-Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, M. Alber, A. Schönfleisch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beats Electronics LLC (Culver City, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘i.Beat jess’– EU trade mark No 4 728 895

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2017 in Case R 2234/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as it upholds the Cancellation Applicant’s application for revocation and revokes the Applicant’s rights in respect of European Union trade mark No 4 728 895;

— dismiss the Cancellation Applicant’s application for revocation;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
—

Declare that (i) the decision of date unknown of the European Parliament not to accept the bid made by Strabag Belgium for the Framework contract for general contractor works in European Parliament buildings (Call for tenders No 06/D20/2017/M036) in Brussels, which decision was notified by letter of 24 November 2017, and (ii) the decision of date unknown of the European Parliament to award the Framework contract for general contractor works in European Parliament buildings in Brussels (Call for tenders No 06/D20/2017/M036) to five tenderers other than Strabag Belgium, and
—

in any event, order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure, those costs being assessed at EUR 30 000 on the basis of the Italian parameters governing the payment of lawyers’ fees, in accordance with Ministerial Decree No 55/2014 of the Italian Justice Ministry, together with a 15 % flat-rate reimbursement of fees under Article 15 of Ministerial Decree No 55/2014 of the Italian Justice Ministry, a 4 % statutory contribution to the lawyers’ fund and 22 % VAT, in so far as it is due, subject to a subsequent, more precise assessment, in the course of the proceedings, of the expenditure incurred.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/28

Action brought on 31 October 2017 — Asociación de Usuarios de Bancos, Cajas y Seguros de España v SRB

(Case T-735/17)

(2018/C 042/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Asociación de Usuarios de Bancos, Cajas y Seguros de España (Adicae Consumidores Críticos y Responsables) (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: J. Llanos Acuña, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should annul the contested decision and declare it null and void.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision of the Single Resolution Board adopted in its executive session of 7 June 2017 (Decision SRB/EES/2017/08) ordering the activation of the Single Resolution Mechanism and its application to the Spanish institution Banco Popular Español, S.A..

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/14

Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Moreira v EUIPO — Da Silva Santos Júnior (NEYMAR)

(Case T-795/17)

(2018/C 063/19)

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Moreira (Guimarães, Portugal) (represented by: T. Soares Faria, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Neymar Da Silva Santos Júnior (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Word mark ‘NEYMAR’ — European Union trade mark No 11 432 044

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2017 Case R 80/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision and declare valid, in accordance with Article 52(1)(b) and Article 53(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, the trade mark ‘NEYMAR’ No 00000 held by Carlos Morera, for all the goods or services for which the mark has been registered;

— Order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/43

Action brought on 29 December 2017 — DRH Licensing & Managing v EUIPO — Merck (Flexagil)

(Case T-831/17)

(2018/C 052/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: DRH Licensing & Managing AG (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Salomonowitz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, 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: EU figurative mark including the word element ‘Flexagil’ — EU trade mark No 7 301 237

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 October 2017 in Case R 2043/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision R 2043/2016-4 of the Board of Appeal of 17 October 2017 in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings and in the appeal proceedings relating to Case R 2043/2016.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001;
3.

A food business operator who imports products of animal origin from outside the European Union may only import fishery products from a third country if the third county in question, from where the products are dispatched, and the establishment from which the product is sent and in which the product has been obtained or prepared, are both listed.
1.

First plea in law, alleging incorrect assessment of the connection between the public contracts ‘Engineering and environmental analysis of the new rail link Lovosice-Dresden in the territory of the Czech Republic’, ‘Evaluation of the project of the new rail link Prague-Dresden in the territory of the Czech Republic’ and ‘New railway Litoměřice-Ústí nad Labem-German frontier’. According to the contested decision, those public contracts are closely linked together and should have been awarded together as being above the threshold. That conclusion is based on an incorrect legal assessment of the matter; the subjects of those public contracts are mutually distinguishable and their implementation required different professional qualifications.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/46

Action brought on 2 January 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg Beer Company)

(Case T-6/18)

(2018/C 072/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hamburg Beer Company GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Hamburg Beer Company’ — Application for registration No 15 272 784

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO 29 September 2017 in Case R 437/2017-5

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)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/51

Action brought on 29 January 2018 — Novenco Building & Industry v EUIPO — Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) (NOVENCO)

(Case T-45/18)

(2018/C 104/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Novenco Building & Industry A/S (Næstved, Denmark) (represented by: A. Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) Co. Ltd (Beijing, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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 sign ‘NOVENCO’ – International registration designating the European Union No 1 187 938

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2017 in Case R 2354/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partly annul the contested decision, namely for the goods of class 7 as covered by IR 1187938;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs as well as the third party’s costs, including those incurred during the appeal and opposition proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/33

Action brought on 22 January 2018 — Marriott Worldwide v EUIPO — AC Milan (AC MILAN)

(Case T-28/18)

(2018/C 094/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Marriott Worldwide Corp. (Bethesda, Maryland, United States) (represented by: A. Reid, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AC Milan SpA (Milan, Italy)

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 containing the word elements ‘AC MILAN’ – International registration designating the European Union No 1 182 615

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2017 in Case R 356/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject the EUTM application for the contested services; and

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

Plea in law
—

annul the contested decisions, in that they designate Cecoforma as the successful tenderer for the framework contract of the call for tenders EACEA/2017/01, and annul the contract signed between EACEA and Cecoforma;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/44

Action brought on 7 February 2018 — Fränkischer Weinbauverband v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)

(Case T-68/18)

(2018/C 112/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Fränkischer Weinbauverband eV. (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Petri and M. Gilch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Tridimensional mark (Shape of a bottle) — Application for registration No 15 431 281

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 in Case R 413/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/38

Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Aytekin v EUIPO — Dienne Salotti (Dienne)

(Case T-107/18)

(2018/C 134/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Erkan Aytekin (Ankara, Turkey) (represented by: V. Martín Santos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dienne Salotti SRL a socio unico (Altamura, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark Dienne — Application for registration No 15 080 302

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 1444/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order Applicant/Intervener and/or the EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant in connection with this appeal, and all procedural costs generated by EUIPO decisions.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/23

Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Rodriguez Prieto v Commission

(Case T-61/18)

(2018/C 134/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Amador Rodriguez Prieto (Steinsel, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare and rule:

— principally, that the Commission is ordered to remedy the losses suffered and therefore to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 68 831 in respect of his pecuniary loss and EUR 100 000 in respect of his non-pecuniary loss;

— in the alternative, that the decision of 28 March 2017 refusing assistance is annulled;

— in any event, that the Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant alleges, principally, that the Commission committed a faute de service in disregarding his status as a whistle-blower, which caused the applicant pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm which it is for the institution to remedy. In the alternative, the applicant argues that the institution failed to have regard to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations by refusing to grant him the assistance provided for in that article after the criminal proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/57

Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA

(Case T-104/18)

(2018/C 142/74)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation (Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain) (representatives: P. Palacios Pesquera and M. Rius Coma, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Declare the application, and the pleas in law contained therein, admissible;

— Uphold the pleas in law put forward in that application and, accordingly, annul the contested decision stating that the repayment of the amounts corresponding to the tasks performed by TECNALIA is not required;

— Order the REA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application has been brought against the outcome of the inter partes financial recovery procedure in respect of the project FP7-SME-2013-605879-FOODWATCH grant agreement. The decision to terminate the FoodWatch grant agreement has its origin in the alleged failure to inform the defendant of the existence of the BreadGuard Project which, in the REA’s view, bore strong similarities to the FoodWatch project in terms of objectives, working methods and expected results.

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

1. The first plea in law, alleging a failure to give reasons for the contested decision because of the failure to take into account the exculpatory evidence highlighted by TECNALIA during the inter partes investigation procedure.

2. The second plea in law, alleging infringement of the content of Annex II to the FoodWatch grant agreement, on account of the defendant’s failure to disclose the identity of the independent experts who endorsed the expert reports on which the contested decision was founded, thereby preventing TECNALIA from challenging those reports.

3. The third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of fault, on account of the defendant’s failure to take into account the degree of TECNALIA’s involvement in the commission of the facts alleged.

4. The fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legality, given the correct implementation of the projects and the absence, on TECNALIA’s part, of infringement of, or failure to fulfil, the commitments contracted.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/36

Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA

(Case T-104/18)

(2018/C 134/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation (Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain) (representatives: P. Palacios Pesquera and M. Rius Coma, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Declare the application, and the pleas in law contained therein, admissible;

— Uphold the pleas in law put forward in that application and, accordingly, annul the contested decision stating that the repayment of the amounts corresponding to the tasks performed by TECNALIA is not required;

— Order the REA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application has been brought against the outcome of the inter partes financial recovery procedure in respect of the project FP7-SME-2013-605879-FOODWATCH grant agreement. The decision to terminate the FoodWatch grant agreement has its origin in the alleged failure to inform the applicant of the existence of the BreadGuard Project which, in the REA’s view, bore strong similarities to the FoodWatch project in terms of objectives, working methods and expected results.

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

1. The first plea in law, alleging a failure to give reasons for the contested decision because of the failure to take into account the exculpatory evidence highlighted by TECNALIA during the inter partes investigation procedure.

2. The second plea in law, alleging infringement of the content of Annex II to the FoodWatch grant agreement, on account of the defendant’s failure to disclose the identity of the independent experts who endorsed the expert reports on which the contested decision was founded, thereby preventing TECNALIA from challenging those reports.

3. The third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of fault, on account of the defendant’s failure to take into account the degree of TECNALIA’s involvement in the commission of the facts alleged.

4. The fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legality, given the correct implementation of the projects and the absence, on TECNALIA’s part, of infringement of, or failure to fulfil, the commitments contracted.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 168, 169 and 191 TFEU in conjunction with Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Regulation (EU) 2016/429 and Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2017/2393, Directive 98/83/EC and Directive (EU) 2015/1787; infringement of the precautionary principle, the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, and the principles of sound, proper and transparent administration; misuse of powers because the facts have been distorted and the preliminary investigation and statement of reasons are insufficient and exist in appearance only; manifest illogicality, mistaken grounds and misapplication of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324. In support of this plea in law, the applicant claims: — that Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 is contrary to the principles and precautions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 for the protection of human health, consumers, animals and the environment; — infringement of the precautionary principle and incompatibility with the case-law of the General Court and the Court of Justice; — failure to carry out proper preliminary investigation into the effects of glyphosate, in particular on animals and groundwater, and breach of the procedures set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009; — unlawfulness of the specifications of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 in that they are left to the Member States’ discretion without any reference standard having been fixed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/59

Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (300 PANORAMICZNYCH)

(Case T-118/18)

(2018/C 142/77)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o. o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 696

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2195/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;

and/or

— declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

in the alternative

— annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 696), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;

and/or

— declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation 2017/1001.