ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/54

Action brought on 17 November 2017 — Perfect Bar/EUIPO (PERFECT Bar)

(Case T-759/17)

(2018/C 022/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Perfect Bar LLC (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: F. Miazzetto, J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements‘PERFECT Bar’ — Application for registration No 15 376 064

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2017 in Case R 2440/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and allow the registration of the trade mark applied for, this is, the European Union Trademark application no. 015376064 ‘PERFECT BAR’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs derived from the procedure before the General Court and the EUIPO.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/45

Action brought on 29 November 2017 — Szabados v EUIPO — Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (Separ) (MicroSepar)

(Case T-788/17)

(2018/C 032/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Szabados (Grünwald, Germany) (represented by: S. Wobst, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (Separ) (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘MicroSepar’ — Application No 14 576 532

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2017 in Case R 2420/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/43

Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED)

(Case T-802/17)

(2018/C 042/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED’ — Application for registration No 15 073 398

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 525/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law: infringement of the TFEU and of the rules of law relating to its application in the form of Article 107(3)(a) TFEU, Article 109 TFEU in conjunction with Article 58(1) of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 and Article 108(2) TFEU in conjunction with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — The defendant takes the view that its discretion to examine is limited, in respect of aid based on Regulation (EU) No 651/2014, to the examination of the conditions for exemption set out by that regulation. That view is erroneous in law since, according to the case-law of the EU Courts, compliance with the conditions of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 has the sole consequence that there is a primacy of a presumption of compatibility over an individual examination. That primacy does not apply in cases such as the present, in which the aid is, prima facie, to be attributed particular importance in respect of its effects on competition. In such cases, the defendant is entitled to carry out an individual assessment outside the framework of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 in compliance with primary law and the general principles of EU law. The defendant has infringed Article 107(3)(a) TFEU by failing to exercise that discretion. — Furthermore, the defendant has infringed Article 109 TFEU in conjunction with Article 58(1) of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014, inasmuch as it retroactively applied that regulation to the present case, even though the conditions for doing so were not met. The aid is ad hoc aid for a large company. The incentive effect of such aid is subject to particularly strict requirements in accordance with Article 6(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014. The proof necessary for the Slovak authorities to satisfy themselves, pursuant to the documents of the aid recipient, that those requirements had been satisfied before they approved the aid has not been adduced. — Lastly, the defendant has infringed Article 108(2) TFEU in conjunction with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, since it has not opened the formal investigation procedure. The defendant assessed the SME status of the aid recipient assumed by it only insufficiently and incompletely during the more than three and a half year-long investigation procedure. In addition, the defendant expressly mentioned difficulties in a meeting in regard to the assessment whether the case concerned aid granted on the basis of an aid scheme or ad hoc aid. The defendant was entitled to leave that question open only if it had sufficiently assessed and correctly established that the aid recipient had SME status. That, however, was not done. Moreover, it was only in the contested decision that the defendant acknowledged that there was no compatibility in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 800/2008, (3) after having claimed the opposite for several years.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/42

Action brought on 29 December 2017 — Eurofer v Commission

(Case T-835/17)

(2018/C 072/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, ASBL (Bruxelles, Belgium) (represented by: J. Killick, Barrister and G. Forwood, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 2 of the Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/1795 of 5 October 2017 (JO 2017, L 258, p. 24)

— order the requested measures of organisation of procedure; and

— order the Commission to pay its costs.

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 a manifest error of appreciation and an error of law in deciding not to cumulate Serbian imports with imports from the other four countries under investigation, in accordance with Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation. (1)

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appreciation and an error in law in finding that trade defence measures against Serbia were ‘unnecessary’ within the meaning of Article 9(2) of the Basic Regulation, even on a de-cumulated basis.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 20(2) of the Basic Regulation, the applicant’s right to disclosure and its rights of defence, as well as a breach of the duty of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, owing to the Commission’s failure to disclose the injury margin (underselling) and undercutting margin with respect to Serbian imports, and its consequent refusal to examine carefully and impartially all relevant aspects of the case.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ [2016] L 176/21).
1.

First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the competition notice. The applicant argues that Article 6.4 of Annex III, which precludes requests for review made by reason of a challenge to the assessment made by the selection board having a positive result, is unlawful, being contrary to the right to an effective remedy provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The contested decision, which is based on that provision, is accordingly unlawful.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/24

Action brought on 8 January 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO — AXA Banque (boon.)

(Case T-2/18)

(2018/C 063/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Wirecard AG (Aschheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Bayer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AXA Banque SA (Fontenay sous Bois, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘boon.’ — Application for registration No 14 672 562

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 706/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition brought by AXA Banque, société anonyme, and grant the application for registration of the trade mark applied for;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, and extend this order to AXA Banque, société anonyme, if the latter decides to intervene in the proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/52

Action brought on 26 January 2018 — NGV v EUIPO (WEIN FÜR PROFIS)

(Case T-56/18)

(2018/C 104/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: NGV GmbH (Wildeshausen, 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 figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WEIN FÜR PROFIS’ — Application for registration No 15 326 549

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 in Case R 501/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/31

Action brought on 17 January 2018 — Lillelam v EUIPO — Pfaff (LITTLE LAMB)

(Case T-18/18)

(2018/C 094/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lillelam A/S (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: N. Köster, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nick Pfaff (Ammanford, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LITTLE LAMB’ — EU trade mark No 8 121 675

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2017 in Case R 536/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— revoke the EU Trademark No 8 121 675 ‘LITTLE LAMB’ for at least ‘Clothing’ and ‘Accessories for Clothing’

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/39

Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Teollisuuden Voima/Commission

(Case T-52/18)

(2018/C 112/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (Eurajoki, Finland) (represented by: M. Powell, solicitor, Y. Utzschneider and K. Struckmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission Decision C(2017) 3777 final of 29 May 2017 declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by EDF of New NP to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.7764 — EDF/Areva reactor business) (OJ 2017 C 377, p. 5); and

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in these proceedings.

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 that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors in its assessment of the product market definition for nuclear fuel assemblies — As a result of these errors, the contested decision would reach the allegedly erroneous conclusion that, within the market for pressurised water reactor type fuel assemblies, no separate market exists for European pressurised water reactor type fuel assemblies. Due to the alleged errors in market definition, the contested decision would fail to consider the effects of the acquisition by EDF of the Areva Group’s nuclear reactors business (the ‘Transaction’) on the narrower product market in question. — Moreover, the substantive assessment of the broader pressurised water reactor fuel assemblies market would be vitiated by additional errors of assessment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors in its assessment of the product market definition for nuclear services — As a result of these errors, the contested decision would reach the allegedly erroneous conclusion that, within the nuclear services market for existing nuclear steam supply systems, no separate product market exists for nuclear services for European pressurised water reactor type nuclear steam supply systems. Due to the alleged errors in market definition, the contested decision would fail to consider the effects of the Transaction on the narrower product market in question. — Moreover, the substantive assessment of the broader nuclear services market for existing nuclear steam supply systems would be vitiated by additional errors of assessment.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors in its assessment of the geographic market definition of the downstream market for the generation and wholesale of electricity

This erroneous geographic market definition allegedly leads to additional errors of assessment of the effects of the Transaction.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission was under the obligation to initiate a formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU by virtue of the serious difficulties test. The Commission’s serious difficulties in adopting the contested decision and thus the violation of the procedural safeguards provided by Article 108(2) TFEU are apparent from the following: — The Commission has erred in law by finding that no advantage is given from State resources, because the Commission has failed to see that Finland has abused its regulatory discretion, which in turn has resulted in foregoing of State resources; — The Commission has erred in law by finding no selective advantage, because the Commission has failed to adequately qualify the ‘special tasks’ as SGEI; — The Commission has failed to collect material information in the preliminary procedure; — The preliminary procedure was unreasonably long (close to 30 months); — The Commission has resorted to an unprecedented legal definition ‘special tasks’; — Finland amended its Universities Act during the preliminary proceedings pursuant to which Finland used to refund corporation tax and the pharmacy fee paid by Yliopiston Apteekki Oy to the University of Helsinki, which was the central regulation of one of the reported State aid measures.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/25

Action brought on 29 January 2018 — Tsapakidou v Court of Justice

(Case T-66/18)

(2018/C 134/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Argyro Tsapakidou (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: E. Kleani, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 23 November 2017 (reference 20173939) rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in respect of the freelance translator contract notice 2017/S 002-001564 for the Greek language;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant maintains that the contested decision breaches the general principles of EU law, according to which administrative acts must be sufficiently justified and state the principles on which they are based. It fails to meet these criteria. The applicant argues, in particular, that the justification provided by the defendant was insufficient in light of Article 4.3.1. of the tender specifications. Moreover, the information provided to the applicant did not enable her to assess the validity of the result obtained in the test translation in question. She lacked information regarding the evaluation guidelines or criteria on the basis of which the contested decision was adopted.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/36

Action brought on 20 January 2018 — Izuzquiza and Semsrott v Frontex

(Case T-31/18)

(2018/C 112/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Luisa Izuzquiza (Madrid, Spain) and Arne Semsrott (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Hilbrans and R. Callsen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision by Frontex of 10 November 2017 (ref: CGO/LAU/18911 c/2017), refusing the applicants access to the name, flag and type of each vessel deployed by Frontex in the Central Mediterranean under Joint Operation Triton in the period from 1 June 2017 until 30 August 2017, both inclusive;

— order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants, including the costs of any intervening party, even if the action is dismissed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that Frontex infringed Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (1) by failing to carry out an individual examination of each requested document in order to assess whether the exception relied on was applicable.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that Frontex infringed the first indent of Article 4(1)(a) of that regulation, which relates to public security, because the reasons given to justify the application of the exception are in a decisive part incorrect in fact: vessels deployed to the operation cannot be tracked by publicly accessible means.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that Frontex infringed the first indent of Article 4(1)(a) of that regulation, which relates to public security, because the reasons given to justify the application of the exception leave out of consideration the circumstance that the applicants only requested information on vessels deployed in the past.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that Frontex infringed the first indent of Article 4(1)(a) of that regulation, which relates to public a security, because the defendant did not consider — and did not answer this argument put forward by the applicants — that part of the requested information was already published on Twitter for some of the vessels deployed under Joint Operation Triton in 2017 and comparable information for vessels deployed under Joint Operation Triton in 2016 was already published.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that Frontex infringed Article 4(6) of that regulation because even if the — in fact not existing — risk that criminal networks circumvent border surveillance would be presumed true, this could possibly only justify refusing information on the name of the vessels deployed but not on the type and flag.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that Frontex infringed Article 4(6) of that regulation by not considering to give partial access to the requested information, even though the information on some of the vessels was already published.

(1) Regulation (EC) 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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/37

Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Deray v EUIPO — Charles Claire (LILI LA TIGRESSE)

(Case T-105/18)

(2018/C 134/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: André Deray (Bry-sur-Marne, France) (represented by: S. Santos Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Charles Claire LLP (Weybridge Surrey, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark LILI LA TIGRESSE — Application for registration No 015 064 462

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2017 in Case R 1244/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— order EUIPO and Charles Claire LLP to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the administrative proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law