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

Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT9)

(Case T-423/20)

(2020/C 287/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, 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: Application for European Union word mark GT9 — Application for registration No 14 738 298

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceeding

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 in Case R 1610/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and other party to bear their costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public;

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public;

— Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections;

— Failure to apply national rules under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty since the calculation of the amount of the ex ante contributions fixed by the SRM Regulation, the Delegated Regulation and the Implementing Regulation, first, cannot be predicted with sufficient clarity and, second, does not depend so much on the inherent situation and risk profile of the institution but rather on its relative situation compared to the other contributing institutions. Finally, the applicants consider that the Commission should not have had responsibility for determining risk indicators in the context of the Delegated Regulation since those criteria have an extremely fundamental and decisive function in determining the amounts of the contributions (Article 290 TFEU).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 July 2020 — Bigben Connected v EUIPO — Forsee Power (FORCE POWER)

(Case T-478/20)

(2020/C 304/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Bigben Connected (Fretin, France) (represented by: M. Chaminade, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark FORCE POWER — Application for registration No 16 541 377

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2020 in Case R 2184/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the opposing party to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Opposition Division and those of the appeal before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 August 2020 — Guerlain v EUIPO (Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick)

(Case T-488/20)

(2020/C 320/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Guerlain (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU tridimensional mark (Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick) — Application for registration No 17 958 667

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2020 in Case R 2292/2019-1

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO –Wong (GT RACING)

(Case T-463/20)

(2020/C 313/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wai Leong Wong (Glasgow, United Kingdom)

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 European Union word mark GT RACING — Application for registration No 17 138 033

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 in Case R 1612/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public;

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erring in the comparison of the signs;

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erring in the comparison of the class 9, 16 and 28 goods of the earlier mark and the class 18 goods of the contested EUTM;

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public;

— Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections;

— Failure to realise that its own finding of fact was sufficient to establish goodwill, misrepresentation an damage under the UK law of passing off;
—

annul European Commission Decision C (2020) 3108 final of 14 May 2020 on State aid SA.50872 (2020/NN) — Compensation to Correos on account of the universal service obligation (‘USO’), 2011-2020; and consequently,
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 August 2020 — Puma v EUIPO — Caterpillar (SPEEDCAT)

(Case T-515/20)

(2020/C 329/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Caterpillar Inc. (Peoria, Illinois, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SPEEDCAT — Application for registration No 16 703 225

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2020 in Case R 1016/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Sütas süt ürünleri (PINAR Süzme Peynir)

(Case T-559/20)

(2020/C 371/24)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Yadex International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: N. Johnson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sütas süt ürünleri AS (Bursa, Turkey)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark PINAR Süzme Peynir — International registration No 1 394 295

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2020 in Case R 2127/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and allow the applicant’s appeal of 23 September 2019 against the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 July 2019;

— order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 August 2020 — Magic Box Int. Toys v EUIPO — KMA Concepts (SUPERZINGS)

(Case T-549/20)

(2020/C 348/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Magic Box Int. Toys SLU (Sant Cugat del Vallés, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: KMA Concepts Ltd. (Hong Kong, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark SUPERZINGS — EU trade mark No 16 164 204

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2020 in Case R 2511/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order any party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 September 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)

(Case T-564/20)

(2020/C 378/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor GmbH (Bensheim, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zagg Inc. (Salt Lake City, Utah, États-Unis)

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: European Union design No 1 253 876-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2020 in Case R 296/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to declare the contested design invalid in accordance with Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging illegality of the competition notice on the basis of which the contested decision was adopted, on the ground that it breached the principles of legal certainty, transparency and predictability, not only in the assessment of the selection criteria but also as regards the ‘relevance’ to be assessed and found by the members of the EPSO selection board in the ‘talent screener’ test.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 October 2020 — Aldi v EUIPO (Cachet)

(Case T-622/20)

(2020/C 399/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, C. Fürsen and M. Minkner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Cachet — Application for registration No 18 092 827

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2020 in Case R 452/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it confirmed rejection of the application for registration in respect of the goods in Class 5 ‘Veterinary preparations; Medical preparations; Pharmaceutical products; Sanitary preparations for medical purposes; Dietetic food and substances adapted for medical or veterinary use, food supplements for human beings and animals’ and dismissed 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 15 September 2020 — Cara Therapeutics v EUIPO — Gebro Holding (KORSUVA)

(Case T-584/20)

(2020/C 390/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cara Therapeutics, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor and T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gebro Holding GmbH (Fieberbrunn, Austria)

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 KORSUVA — Application for registration No 17 816 844

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 July 2020 in Case R 2450/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the decision of the Opposition Division of 27 January 2018 in Opposition No B 002437922;

— allow the contested application to proceed to registration;

— order EUIPO and Gebro Holdings GmbH to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission’s assessment of Community interest was manifestly incorrect. The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission failed to take account of the importance and gravity of the infringement of the competition rules as criteria for assessing Community interest. The applicant adds that the fraudulent exploitation of his patent portfolio has allowed online merchants as well as postal and logistics operators to use the invention in question without sharing its use, its advantages and the benefits deriving from it over the entire market concerned.
Action brought on 30 September 2020 — Austrian Power Grid and Others v ACER

(Case T-607/20)

(2020/C 414/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Austrian Power Grid AG (Vienna, Austria) and seven other applicants (represented by: M. Levitt, lawyer, B. Byrne and D. Jubrail, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul, insofar as it affects the applicants, the contested decision;

— annul Article 1 of Decision No. 03/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 and Articles 3(3), 3(5)(b), 4(6), 6, 11(1)(c), 11(2)(c) and 12 of the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation;

— order ACER to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this application, the applicants seek the annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 16 July 2020 in Case A-002-2020 (consolidated) dismissing the appeals brought against Decision No. 03/2020 of ACER of 24 January 2020 on the Implementation framework for the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation and, as relevant, of Decision No. 03/2020 of ACER and Annex I to that decision.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law following the finding of the defendant’s Board of Appeal that the defendant had the competence to supplement and amend the provisions of an implementing act, the EBGL (1), by taking a decision that departed from the agreed position of the national regulatory authorities, in breach of the principle of conferral and the ACER Regulation

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law through the failure of the defendant’s Board of Appeal to apply correctly the requirements for the design and operation of the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation, endorsing ACER’s amendment of the provisions of an implementing act, the EBGL.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principle of good administration, the rights of defence and the obligation to state reasons, and fails to discharge the legal obligations of the defendant’s Board of Appeal as an appeal board.

(1) Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 of 23 November 2017 establishing a guideline on electricity balancing (OJ 2017 L 312, p. 6).
Action brought on 15 October 2020 — Delifruit v Commission

(Case T-629/20)

(2020/C 433/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Delifruit, SA (Guayaquil, Ecuador) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, P. Sellar and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— partially annul the Contested Act, as amended by Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085, in so far as it establishes the maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos for bananas at 0,01 mg/kg; and,

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of the Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085 of 23 July 2020 amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl in or on certain products (1), as amended by Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085 (2).

In support of the action, the applicant alleges the Commission has committed a manifest error of assessment by not taking into account a relevant factor (a substantive study disproving one of the alleged reasons for the adoption of the maximum residue limit) in its assessment leading to the adoption of the contested act, and, in so doing, has also infringed Article 14(2) (a) and (f) of Regulation 396/2005 which require that all relevant and available data be taken into account by it.

(1) OJ 2020 L 239, p. 7

(2) OJ 2020 L 245, p. 31
1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, breach of the principle of sound administration and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, insofar as: — terminating the applicant’s contract on the ground of budget restrictions was manifestly erroneous, and against JASPERS 2020 Specific Grant Agreement and the decision of Management Committee of the EIB of 2019; — terminating the applicant’s contract on the ground that the workload of JASPERS Smart Development Division, where the applicant was assigned, was lower than that of JASPERS other divisions and that, as a result, there was no business need for keeping the applicant in her position was manifestly erroneous; and — terminating the applicant’s contract went manifestly against the interest of the service, whether from an administrative, financial or workload perspective, and breached the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 November 2020 — Celler Lagravera v EUIPO — Cyclic Beer Farm (Cíclic)

(Case T-673/20)

(2021/C 19/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Celler Lagravera, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyclic Beer Farm, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the European Union figurative mark ‘Cíclic’ — Application for registration No 17 948 980

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 August 2020 in Case R 465/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as, by dismissing the appeal of Celler Lagravera, SLU, it confirms the Opposition Division’s decision No B 3 071 125 upholding the opposition against all the goods covered by EU trade mark No 17 948 980 ‘Cíclic’ (figurative) designating ‘wines’ in Class 33; and

— order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 November 2020 — MiMedx Group v EUIPO — DIZG (Epiflex)

(Case T-706/20)

(2021/C 35/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MiMedx Group, Inc. (Marietta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: J. Bogatz and Y. Stone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DIZG Deutsches Institut für Zell- und Gewebeersatz gGmbH (Berlin, 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: European Union word mark Epiflex — European Union trade mark No 1 281 385

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2020 in Case R 133/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision

— order EUIPO and the other Party to the proceedings to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 19(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430;

— Infringement of the principle of equality as laid down in Article 20 in conjunction with Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’);

— Infringement of the right to good administration as laid down in Article 41(1) of the Charter;

— Infringement of right to a fair trial as laid down in Article 47 of the Charter;