ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/53

Action brought on 13 November 2017 — CMS Hasche Sigle v EUIPO (WORLD LAW GROUP)

(Case T-756/17)

(2018/C 022/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CMS Hasche Sigle Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten und Steuerberatern mbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P.-C. Thielen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘WORLD LAW GROUP’ — Application for registration No 14 667 844

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2017 in Case R 329/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— overturn the contested decision regarding the trade mark application No 14 667 844 insofar as the trademark application is rejected;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (b) Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU vitiating the contested decision in the present case, namely Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017 on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24). Such an infringement was committed by the Commission in so far as it classified the C2 contribution of CT2 as State aid, considering that the measure conferred an economic advantage on its beneficiaries. The applicant considers moreover that the Commission, in its analysis, commits several errors of law and assessment when it concluded that the fourth criterion of the Altmark case-law was not fulfilled in the present case.
—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of the European Parliament of 31/08/2016, refusing to accept two medical certificates produced by the applicant in order to justify certain absences from work and accordingly declaring the absence in question to be unauthorised.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/42

Action brought on 6 December 2017 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de)

(Case T-801/17)

(2018/C 042/58)

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 3-star-guarantee.de’ — Application for registration No 15 073 381

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 524/2017-4

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
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/38

Action brought on 5 December 2017 — Man Truck & Bus v EUIPO — Halla Holdings (MANDO)

(Case T-792/17)

(2018/C 042/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Man Truck & Bus AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Röhl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Halla Holdings Corp. (Yongin-si, Republic of Korea)

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 figurative mark ‘MANDO’ — Application for registration No 11 276 301

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 in Case R 1677/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 102 TFEU, a manifest error of law by using the wrong legal test to evaluate the alleged abuse. According to the applicant, there could be an abuse only if access to the Track were essential or indispensable for competitors to compete on the downstream market (which is not the case).
—

declare that the applicant must be compensated for all of the material and non-material damage suffered by him as a result of the serious infringement of the right to good administration in the form of the adoption of the undated decision signed electronically on 25 September 2017 headed ‘Application for replacement of main expert No 2 in “Financial and Contractual Project Administration”’;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/37

Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT

(Case T-809/17)

(2018/C 072/48)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Intercontact Budapest Fordító és Pénzügyi Tanácsadó Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: É. Subasicz, lawyer)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Primarily, declare whether the points awarded to each tenderer are accurate on the basis of the comparison of the bids submitted and whether they comply with the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency.

— In the alternative, annul the defendant’s decision of 10 July 2017 concerning the result of the public procurement procedures FL/GEN 16-01 and FL/GEN 16-02.

— In the further alternative, annul the public procurement procedures.

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency, inasmuch as the defendant applied different approaches to the tenderers in the public procurement procedures, in that it assessed identical activities differently in each procedure. (1)

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misused its powers by not sending the applicant the information required in the public procurement procedures. (2)

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the transparency of public procurement procedures, inasmuch as the defendant only published the result of the procedure in the Official Journal out of time and without including all the information prescribed by the EU Directive. (3)

4. Fourth plea in law alleging that the defendant infringed the Directive on public procurement by failing to give notice of the time limit for review, thus limiting the possibility of review. (4)

(1) Recitals 1 and 90 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

(2) Article 113 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

(3) Article 50 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

(4) Annex V, Part D (point 16) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/13

Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Medora Therapeutics v EUIPO — Biohealth Italia (LITHOREN)

(Case T-776/17)

(2018/C 063/18)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Medora Therapeutics LTD (Halandri, Greece) (represented by: S. Santos Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Biohealth Italia Srl (Rivoli, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LITHOREN’ — EU trade mark No 12 744 901

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 in Case R 178/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/44

Action brought on 9 January 2018 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (AT ANN TAYLOR)

(Case T-4/18)

(2018/C 072/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Holzer y Cia, SA de CV (Mexico city, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘AT ANN TAYLOR’ — EU trade mark No 11 197 647

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2017 in Case R 2371/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— admit the action;

— annul the contested decision;

— confirm the validity of the registration of the EUTM No 11 197 647 ‘AT ANN TAYLOR’ for all the products for which the said application sought protection;

— order the intervener to pay the costs of the procedure.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/45

Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-21/18)

(2018/C 104/58)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2017) 7263) (OJ 2017 L 292, p. 61), in so far as it excludes from EU financing the net amounts of EUR 48 317 806,79 and EUR 26 638 201,22 in expenditure incurred by the payment agency accredited by the Republic of Poland;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (1) through the application of a financial correction based on incorrect findings of fact and an incorrect interpretation of the law, despite the fact that the expenditure was effected by the Republic of Poland in conformity with EU law.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 through the application of a flat-rate correction which was flagrantly excessive in relation to the risk of potential financial damage to the EU budget.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU by reason of insufficient substantiation of the correction applied.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549), as amended.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/29

Action brought on 11 January 2018 — easyJet Airline v Commission

(Case T-8/18)

(2018/C 094/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (Luton, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Willis, Solicitor, and E. Bourtzalas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 (1) in its entirety and, in any event, so far as the alleged unlawful State aid given to the applicant is concerned; and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law as regards the conclusion that the airport operators acted as mere ‘intermediaries’ of the region of Sardinia, and thus that the funding they provided to the applicant involved State resources and was imputable to the State.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law as regards the conclusion that the funding provided to the applicant by the airport operators conferred an undue advantage on the applicant and in particular that the Commission applied the market economy operator principle incorrectly.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law as regards the conclusion that the financing of the airlines concerned distorts or threatens to distort competition and affects trade between Member States.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law as regards the conclusion that the alleged aid that the Commission found was given to the applicant could not be approved as compatible with the internal market under one of the exemptions laid down in Article 107(3) TFEU.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law insofar as the Commission breached the principle of legitimate expectations, as the applicant had a legitimate expectation that its arrangements with the airport operators did not involve State aid.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by insufficient reasoning as regards both: (a) the conclusion that the airport operators acted as mere ‘intermediaries’ of the region of Sardinia and that therefore the funding they provided to the applicant involved State resources and was imputable to the State; and (b) the application of the market economy operator principle with a view to establishing that the applicant received an undue advantage.

(1) Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI) (OJ 2017 L 268, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/38

Action brought on 25 January 2018 — VF v ECB

(Case T-39/18)

(2018/C 112/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VF (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present appeal admissible and founded;

— annul the applicant’s reviewed 2016 appraisal and annual salary and bonus review (‘ASBR’) dated 24 May 2017 notified on the same day;

— annul the ECB decision dated 13 September 2017 rejecting his request for an administrative review of his reviewed 2016 appraisal and ASBR;

— annul the ECB decision dated 20 December 2017 and notified to the applicant on 21 December 2017 rejecting his grievance procedure against his reviewed 2016 appraisal and ASBR;

— annul the decision of non-conversion of the applicant’s contract, dated 6 March 2017;

— annul the ECB decision dated 4 July 2017 rejecting his request for an administrative review of the decision of non-conversion of his contract;

— annul the ECB decision dated 15 November 2017 and notified to him on 21 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s grievance procedure against the non-conversion of his contract;

— order the defendant to compensate the material and moral prejudices suffered by the applicant; and

— order the defendant to pay all the costs incurred by the applicant for the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following arguments.

1. As to the non-conversion decision: — Plea of illegality of the Conversion Policy: violation of article 10(c) of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank (‘CoE’) and of article 2.0 of the Staff Regulations (‘SR’) and violation of the hierarchy of norms. — Plea of illegality: article 10(c) CoE and article 2.0 SR are in breach of Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (1) concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP and Recital 6 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP. — The non-conversion decision was taken on the basis of illegal appraisal and ASBR decisions.

2. As to the appraisal: — Procedural irregularity and absence of dialogue. — Violation of the duty to state reason, violation of the principle of good administration and of due care and lack of information. — Manifest errors of appreciation.

3. As to the ASBR decision: — Plea of illegality of the ASBR Guidelines, violation of the duty to state reasons and violation of the principle of legal certainty. — Lack of due explanation regarding the background of the applicant’s salary award, lack of transparency and violation of the duty to state reason. — Manifest error of appreciation.

(1) Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999, L 175, p. 43).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/47

Action brought on 6 February 2018 — MPM-Quality v EUIPO — Elton Hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)

(Case T-75/18)

(2018/C 112/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: MPM-Quality v.o.s (Frýdek-Místek, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elton Hodinářská a.s. (Nové Město nad Metují, Czech Republic)

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 figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949’ — European Union trade mark No 3 531 662

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 December 2017 in Case R 556/2017-4

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 Articles 18 and 58 of Regulation No 1001/2017;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/29

Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (ARMONIE)

(Case T-88/18)

(2018/C 134/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Gruppo Armonie SpA (Casalgrande, Italy) (represented by: G. Medri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘ARMONIE’ — Application for registration No 16 430 068

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2063/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/25

Action brought on 31 January 2018 — Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN)

(Case T-54/18)

(2018/C 123/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Fashion Energy Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller, F. Togo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Retail Royalty Co. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark 1st AMERICAN — Application for registration No 8 622 078

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 in Case R 693/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— stay proceedings pursuant to Art. 69(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court until final and binding decision has been taken on the request for partial revocation against opposition mark EUTM 005066113;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/63

Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Shimano Europe (PRO)

(Case T-122/18)

(2018/C 142/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: A. Berger and A. Marx, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shimano Europe BV (Nunspeet, Netherlands).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark PRO — Application for registration No 14 468 904

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2017 in Case R 1332/2017-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject Opposition No 002654773 filed against EUTM application No 014 468 904;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings;

— order Shimano Europe B.V. to pay the costs of the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/32

Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Multifit Tiernahrungs v EUIPO (fit+fun)

(Case T-94/18)

(2018/C 134/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark fit+fun — Application No 15 996 432

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2017 in Case R 847/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law