ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/34

Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale

(Case T-271/17)

(2017/C 231/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, Agent and M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale Srl (Oricola, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of EUR 189 128,26 in relation to the Grant Agreement for partners No 632456 ‘WITTINESS-WindTunnel Tests on an Innovative regional A/C for Noise assessment’, plus the amount of EUR 979,32 as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,5 % for the period between 7 February 2017 and 1 April 2017;

— order the defendant to pay EUR 18,14 per day by way of interest from 2 April 2017 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on on the following plea in law.

The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to implement project WITTINESS and by failing to provide CSJU with the relevant reports and deliverables, in accordance with Article II.2 Annex II of the Grant Agreement.

Moreover, the defendant has failed to carry out the work to be performed as identified in Annex I therefore violating its obligations under Article II.3 lett. a) e) and h) of Annex II of the Grant Agreement.

Accordingly, the applicant terminated the Grant Agreement on the basis of Article II.38 Annex II of the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of EUR 189 128,26 that had already been paid by the coordinator to the defendant in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Indeed the pre-financing remains the property of the applicant until final payment.

The facts giving rise to Revoind Industriale S.r.l.’s obligations, as beneficiary of the Grant Agreement, are widely undisputed in the present case and the defendant’s objections are generic, incomplete and lack of any supporting element, thus appear to be completely unfounded.

Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled because its central finding of a single and continuous infringement covering air cargo services on all routes to and from the EU is vitiated by serious errors of law and factual appreciation. According to the applicants, the contested decision fails to establish in particular: (i) the existence of a worldwide cartel; (ii) jurisdiction over conduct involving air cargo sales outside the EU; (iii) application of Article 101 TFEU to conduct regulated or required by foreign governments; (iv) a sufficient link between conduct involving the three alleged elements of the single and continuous infringement, being fuel surcharges, security surcharges, and alleged refusal to pay commissions on surcharges; and (v) a sufficient link between airline contacts at headquarters level and conduct in local markets.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 20(3) and (4) and 21 of Regulation No 1/2003 and the fundamental rights on the ground that the applicants were deprived of other fundamental guarantees. In particular, the inspection decisions are not limited in time, could be implemented without effective notice and without respecting the right to legal assistance, the right to silence and the applicants’ right to privacy and did not permit the applicants to mount an effective opposition, having regard to the constant reminders of penalties in the case of obstruction.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in its assessment of the project ‘Starting production of a next-generation diesel engine by Volkswagen Motor Polska’ by deciding that, on account of its lack of innovation, that project is not guaranteed to be consistent with the priorities of the Operational Programme ‘Innovative Economy’ (Priority Axis IV of that programme), and that, consequently, it does not meet the requirements of Article 41(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/68

Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Hotelbeds Spain v EUIPO — Guidigo Europe (Guidego what to do next)

(Case T-346/17)

(2017/C 239/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hotelbeds Spain, SL (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guidigo Europe SARL (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the words elements ‘Guidego what to do next’ — Application for registration No 12 944 898

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 in Case R 449/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant the European Union trade mark application No 12 944 898, in classes 39, 41 and 43.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/39

Action brought on 20 June 2017 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — C & C IP (T)

(Case T-379/17)

(2017/C 256/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft KG (Mülheim an den Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: H. Prange and S. Köber lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘T’ — Application for registration No 011 623 097

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2017 in Case R 415/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (Trade Marks and designs) (‘EUIPO’) of 23 March 2017 in the appeal No R 415/2015-5 concerning the opposition proceedings No B 002 256 702 regarding European Union Trade Mark Application No 011 623 097, which was received by the applicant on 12 April 2017, and to amend it to the effect that the opposition is rejected in its entirety;

— order the defendant and, as the case may be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/45

Action brought on 09 June 2017 — Linak v EUIPO — ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical (Shape of electrically operated lifting column)

(Case T-367/17)

(2017/C 249/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Linak A/S (Nordborg, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design ‘Electrically operated lifting column’ — Community design No 101 159-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 in Case R 1411/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the Applicant.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/30

Action brought on 14 June 2017 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-376/17)

(2017/C 269/41)

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 European Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 2104 final of 4 April 2017 extending the suspension of monthly payments to Poland concerning preliminary recognition aid for groups of producers in the fruit and vegetable sector within the framework of the European Agriculture Guarantee Fund (EAGF);

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 41(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013, (1) read in conjunction with the introductory wording of the first subparagraph of that provision and Article 41(2)(b) of that regulation, by extending the suspension of monthly payments on the basis of errors of fact and misinterpretation of the law, notwithstanding the fact that the conditions for suspending monthly payments were not met.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and Article 41(3) of Regulation No 1306/2013 by maintaining the rate of suspension of monthly payments at a level that was flagrantly excessive in relation to the risk of potential loss to the European Union budget.

(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 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/40

Action brought on 20 June 2017 — Triggerball v EUIPO (Shape of a ball-like object with edges)

(Case T-387/17)

(2017/C 256/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Triggerball GmbH (Baiern-Piusheim, Germany) (represented by: H. Emrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Mark at issue: Three-dimensional EU mark (Shape of a ball-like object with edges) — Application No 15 528 615

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2017 in Case R 376/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

It is argued that the ECB erred in so far as it relied on the directives of the Malta Financial Services Authority as being final and conclusive notwithstanding that the latter remain subject to confirmation, reversal or variation by the Financial Services Tribunal. In any case the ECB was manifestly wrong to hold that the withdrawal of the supervised entity’s licence was preferable to the forced sale of the Bank and that there was low probability that the sale option would materialise.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/60

Action brought on 11 July 2017 — Alpine Welten Die Bergführer v EUIPO (ALPINEWELTEN Die Bergführer)

(Case T-428/17)

(2017/C 277/85)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Alpine Welten Die Bergführer GmbH & Co. KG (Berghülen, Germany) (represented by: T.-C. Leisenberg)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ALPINEWELTEN Die Bergführer’ – Application for registration No 15 187 826

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 in Case R 1339/2016-1

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 309/40

Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Ghost — Corporate Management v EUIPO (Dry zone)

(Case T-488/17)

(2017/C 309/53)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Ghost — Corporate Management SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: S. de Barros Araújo, advogada)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Word mark ‘Dry zone’ — Application for registration No 15 498 322

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 June 2017 in Case R 0683/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present appeal and consequently annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 5 June 2017 in its entirety and consequently substitute the contested decision with one which holds that Case No R 683/2017-2, EUTM No 015498322 Dry Zone was filed in good time, so that the action may be pursued accordingly.

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— First plea: infringement of Article 60 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1) and Article 72(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (JO 1995, L 303, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OJ 2015, L 341, p. 21);

— second plea: failure to observe the procedural safeguards to which the appellant is entitled, by not establishing the existence of facts which are not under the control of the applicant or which amount to an incidence of force majeure, in breach of the principle of proportionality;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/35

Action brought on 18 July 2017 — Sevenfriday v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENFRIDAY)

(Case T-449/17)

(2017/C 300/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sevenfriday AG (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Mostardini, F. Mellucci, S. Pallavicini and G. Bellomo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SEVENFRIDAY’ — Application for registration No 13 500 533

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 in Case R 2292/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar that it rejected the appeal lodged by Sevenfriday AB against the decision B252649 of 10 October 2016 and consequently allow the application No 16500533 to proceed to registration as EU trade mark;

— subordinately, annul the contested decision and revoke at least insofar goods in class 9 are concerned.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 318/12

Action brought on 30 May 2017 — The GB Foods v EUIPO — Yatecomeré (YATEKOMO)

(Case T-336/17)

(2017/C 318/17)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: The GB foods, SA (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: M. Buganza González and E. Torner Lasalle, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yatecomeré, SL (Ribadumia, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘YATEKOMO’ — EU trade mark No 11 703 568

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2017 in Case R 1506/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare admissible the present application challenging the decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2017 (Case R 1506/2016-5), and grant the application by annulling the Board of Appeal’s decision and by restoring and confirming the validity of trade mark No 11 703 568 ‘YATEKOMO’ for all of the goods in Classes 29 and 30 in respect of which the mark was applied for initially;

— declare that the mark ‘YATEKOMO’ is well known;

— order EUIPO to make available to the Court all the documentation which was provided for that registration and which comprised the file for the annulment proceedings before EUIPO in respect of the mark ‘YATEKOMO’ in order that all of the documents produced in the proceedings may be analysed;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law

— The trade mark ‘YATEKOMO’ does not infringe Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009. The EU word mark does not conflict with the earlier Spanish composite mark ‘ya te comeré el vacío que te llena’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 318/25

Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube v Commission

(Case T-500/17)

(2017/C 318/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co. Ltd (Huangshi, China) (represented by: E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/804 of 11 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2017 L 121, p. 3) at least as far as the applicant is concerned; and

— order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s 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 that the Commission violated Articles 3(2) and (3) Basic Regulation (1) as well as Articles 3.1 and 3.2 WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in determining price undercutting. According to the applicant, the Commission merely conducted a mathematical comparison between prices for the year 2015 only without undertaking a dynamic assessment of price developments and trends in the relationship between imported prices and domestic prices. The applicant further puts forward that the Commission also did not establish price undercutting for the product as a whole.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 3(6) Basic Regulation (and Article 3.5 WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement) in basing the causation analysis on an illegal undercutting determination.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that in establishing a causal link between the dumped imports and the injury to the Union industry, the Commission committed a manifest error in finding that (1) there was a correlation between the dumped imports and the injury to the Union industry; and (2) that other factors (decrease in export performance and demand and an increase of imports from other countries) did not individually or collectively break this causal link.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its obligation of due diligence and proper administration by refusing to engage in an injury and causation analysis by segment, thereby failing to ensure that its injury and causation findings were not distorted.

(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, p. 21).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 338/17

Action brought on 11 August 2017 — Haufe-Lexware v EUIPO — Le Shi Holdings (Beijing) (Leshare)

(Case T-546/17)

(2017/C 338/19)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Haufe-Lexware GmbH & Co. KG (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Le Shi Holdings (Beijing) Ltd (Beijing, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Leshare’ — Application for registration No 13 883 301

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 June 2017 in Case R 1691/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 330/14

Action brought on 1 August 2017 — Opere Pie d’Onigo v Commission

(Case T-491/17)

(2017/C 330/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Istituzione Pubblica di Assistenza e Beneficienza ‘Opere Pie d’Onigo’ (Pederobba, Italy) (represented by: G. Maso, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul, in its entirety or in individual parts, the Commission decision adopted on 27 March 2017 (SA.38825) State aid — Italy, presumed State aid for private providers of social and healthcare services.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that Article 107 TFEU has been infringed and that the Commission erred in finding that the selective exclusion of public providers of social and healthcare services from INPS (National Social Welfare Institute) maternity insurance and from the refunding of costs incurred in respect of the absence of employees who care for family members with serious disabilities was justified.

2. Second plea in law, based on the State origin of the aid, on the ground that, according to the applicant, the funds intended to cover private companies’ costs relating to maternity insurance and the refunding of costs incurred in respect of the absence of employees who care for family members with serious disabilities are paid by the INPS and, consequently, by the Italian State via State resources.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that, according to the applicant, such measures favour private companies by conferring on them an advantage over public providers of the same services, which must instead bear in full the costs relating to periods of absence in respect of maternity leave and care provided to family members with serious disabilities, resulting in serious financial consequences.