ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/25

Action brought on 14 January 2016 — Pandalis v OHIM– LR Health & Beauty Systems (Cystus)

(Case T-15/16)

(2016/C 090/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Georgios Pandalis (Glandorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Cystus’ — Community mark No 1 273 119

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2015 in Case R 2839/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision relating to Invalidity proceedings No 8374 C and Community mark No 1 273 119 ‘Cystus’;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 51(1)(a) and (2) thereof;

— Misuse of powers;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/36

Action brought on 11 February 2016 — Apax Partners v EUIPO — Apax Partners Midmarket (APAX)

(Case T-58/16)

(2016/C 111/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Apax Partners LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Rose, J. Curry and J. Warner, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apax Partners Midmarket (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘APAX’ — Application for registration No 3 538 981

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 in Case R 1441/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety and remit the application for the Contested Mark to EUIPO to allow it to proceed and;

— order EUIPO and any party involved in these proceedings before the Board to bear their own costs and pay the Applicant’s costs of these proceedings and those of the Appeal before the Board and the Opposition B 764 029 before the Opposition Division.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/43

Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Fink (NANA FINK)

(Case T-39/16)

(2016/C 106/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nadine Fink (Basle, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for 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 ‘NANA FINK’ — International registration designating the European Union No IR 1 111 651

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2015 in Case R 679/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in opposition proceedings B 2 125 543 (International trade mark registration No IR 1 111 651);

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/40

Action brought on 17 February 2016 — Ikos v EUIPO (AEGYPTISCHE ERDE)

(Case T-76/16)

(2016/C 118/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ikos GmbH (Lörrach, Germany) (represented by: A. Masberg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AEGYPTISCHE ERDE’ — Application for registration No 14 027 239

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2015 in Case R 1257/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and register the mark applied for;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/33

Action brought on 1 February 2016 — Alfonso Egüed v EUIPO — Jackson Family Farms (BYRON)

(Case T-45/16)

(2016/C 111/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nelson Alfonso Egüed (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jackson Family Farms LLC (Santa Rosa, United States)

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 ‘BYRON’ — Application for registration No 10 581 619

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings/Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2015 in Case R 822/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision;

— grant the application for registration of the EU trademark No 10581619 ‘BYRON’ for all goods covered in classes 18, 25 and 33 (being the latter the contested class in the present proceedings);

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

Plea in law
Second ground of appeal: erroneous application of the termination clause contained in the appellants’ employment contracts in so far as the competitions at issue do not relate to the specialisation ‘industrial property’ referred to in the termination clause and therefore cannot bring that termination clause into play.

The appellants claim, in the context of the first and second grounds of appeal, that in the judgment under appeal the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) misconstrued the wording, meaning and purpose of the termination clause as well as its temporal point of reference and applicability.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/38

Action brought on 23 February 2016 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION)

(Case T-82/16)

(2016/C 136/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, A. Alpera Plazas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘TRIPLE EVOLUTION’ — Application for registration No 11 968 138

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2015 in Case R 725/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— admit the application;

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order the registration of the EU mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION in all the goods and services it seeks protection;

— order EUIPO and/or the opponent to bear the fees and costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/24

Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (Burlington)

(Case T-120/16)

(2016/C 175/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Burlington Fashion GmbH (Schmallenberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: 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 element ‘Burlington’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 017 273

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 in Case R 94/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject the contested mark in respect of all of the contested goods;

— order the payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/52

Action brought on 1 March 2016 — Aydin v EUIPO — Kaporal France (ROYAL & CAPORAL)

(Case T-95/16)

(2016/C 156/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Savas Aydin (Pantin, France) (represented by: F. Watrin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kaporal France (Marseilles, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ROYAL & CAPORAL’ — Application for registration No 12 587 663

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2015 in Case R 867/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to register the trade mark ROYAL & CAPORAL (application No 12 587 663);

— order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs and expenses.

Plea in law
—

In that regard, the applicant claims that the contested decision requires interest to be applied at a compound rate to the sums owed by the undertakings in repayment of the State aid, as provided for in Article 11 of Regulation No 794/2004. The Italian Government contests that requirement arguing that, having regard also to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, interest calculated in such a manner may not be applied in relation to recovery decisions notified before the entry into force of Regulation No 794/2004 or, still less, in relation to decisions notified before the publication of the Commission’s Communication of 2003 on the interest rates to be applied for the recovery of unlawful state aid. On the contrary, relying, as the Commission does in the contested decision, upon an alleged agreement to the contrary, entered into by the Commission itself and the Italian authorities, is of no validity.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/18

Action brought on 17 March 2016 — zero v EUIPO — Hemming (ZIRO)

(Case T-106/16)

(2016/C 175/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: zero Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Oliver Hemming (Cadbury, 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: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘ZIRO’ — EU trade mark application No 12 264 958

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 in Case R 71/2015-4

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 Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Metronia v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE O NADA)

(Case T-159/16)

(2016/C 211/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Metronia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘TRIPLE O NADA’ — Application for registration No 11 603 529

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 in Case R 2605/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of 15 February 2016 and allow the EU trade mark applied for;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging defects affecting the external legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into two parts. — First part, according to which it is the Bureau of the European Parliament and not the Secretary General which has competence with respect to financial decision affecting political parties and, therefore, the Members. — Second part, according to which the Bureau of the European Parliament could not modify the nature and scope of its competence. The Secretary General fails to show that the President of the Bureau of the European Parliament delegated powers to him enabling him to adopt and notify the contested measures concerning the regulation of financial questions affecting a Member.
—

annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 2 March 2016, the decision of 16 March 2016 and the decision of 22 April 2016 rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in the context of European public contract No 10573 ‘Development, maintenance, evolution and support services for Internet sites based on SharePoint technology and drafting services for publication on the Internet’, published by notice of 17 December 2015, for Lot No 1 with a total value of EUR 2 005 704 over four years;
First plea in law: Infringement of the second sentence of Article 10(3) TEU in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 1 TEU

The applicants submit that the second sentence of Article 10(3) TEU established a binding objective and legal requirement for the Union and its organs to take decisions as openly as possible. That optimisation requirement, enriched by the second subparagraph of Article 1 TEU and geared towards the greatest possible transparency of Union action, is surmountable, provided that, in a given case, a justification in the form of a legitimate aim of EU law can be cited in opposition to it and that the limitation to attaining the objective is appropriate, necessary and proportionate. However, based on the possibility — which is withheld from national representatives — of accompaniment by vetted political group staff when accessing TTIP documents, such grounds do not exist.

In addition, there is also no justification for access to TTIP documents, as on display in the reading rooms, not being possible for Union citizens.

Furthermore, the second sentence of Article 10(3) TEU has been infringed because the defendant’s TTIP negotiating mandate extends to objects which fall within the competence of the Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/35

Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Ipuri v EUIPO — van Graaf (IPURI)

(Case T-226/16)

(2016/C 232/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ipuri GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: van Graaf GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘IPURI’ — Application for registration No 8 971 021

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 March 2016 in Case R 886/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 15 in conjunction with Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009, Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/24

Action brought on 27 April 2016 – Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund v EUIPO – Luigi Lavazza (CReMESPRESSO)

(Case T-189/16)

(2016/C 232/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Luigi Lavazza SpA (Torino, 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: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘CReMESPRESSO’ – EU trade mark No 8 919 541

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2823/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision as far as it allows the CTM proprietor’s appeal and annuls the decision of the EUIPO of 24 October 2014 in part, namely for ‘ice cream makers, ice cream machines, and coffee machines’ in Class 11, and ‘electric ice crushers’ in Class 7;

— order the Respondent and Intervener to pay the costs of this Appeal.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) lacked a proper legal basis for the contested measures. Arguments in support of this and subsequent pleas, include the following. The conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not satisfied by the contested measures. Those contested measures were inconsistent with the objectives expressly invoked by the Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 (rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine). Indeed, the contested measures undermine the rule of law and human rights by supporting a regime which does not have a history of human rights compliance or compliance with the rule of law. No reliance can properly be placed by the Council on decisions of Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office or Courts, including because they are neither independent nor impartial, and are subject to political interference by the current regime in Ukraine. The presumption of innocence, to which the applicant is entitled, has been repeatedly violated by the Ukraine authorities.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/42

Action brought on 11 May 2016 — Vignerons de la Méditerranée v EUIPO — Bodegas Grupo Yllera (LE VAL FRANCE)

(Case T-216/16)

(2016/C 243/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Vignerons de la Méditerranée (Narbonne, France) (represented by: M. Karsenty-Ricard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas Grupo Yllera SL (Rueda, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark featuring the word elements ‘LE VAL FRANCE’ — Application for registration No 12 162 921

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2016 in Case R 427/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject opposition No B 2 307 737 brought by the company Bodegas Grupo Yllera SL against EU trade mark application No 12 162 921 submitted by the company Vignerons de la Méditerranée;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12-23) should have been implemented.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/37

Action brought on 4 May 2016 — Cop v EUIPO — Conexa (AMPHIBIAN)

(Case T-215/16)

(2016/C 251/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cop Vertriebs-GmbH (Aresing, Germany) (represented by: H. Hofmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Conexa LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

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 mark ‘AMPHIBIAN’ — International registration designating the European Union No 359 251

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2016 in Case R 1984/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul or alter the contested decision;

— annul or alter the decision of the Cancellation Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 September 2015 in cancellation proceedings No 9736 C;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— fix a date for the hearing.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/52

Action brought on 19 May 2016 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA)

(Case T-248/16)

(2016/C 270/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Walfood SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Cornu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Romanov Holding, SL (La Moraleja, Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘CHATKA’ — European Union trade mark No 943670

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 150/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated Article 266 TFEU by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in C & J Clark International, C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74;