ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/40

Action brought on 9 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FRee STyLe)

(Case T-212/16)

(2016/C 243/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH (Munich, Germany)

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 ‘FRee STyLe’— EU trade mark No 10 317 642

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2016 in Case R 377/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

— Coexistence of the opposing marks and other signs containing the term ‘FREE STYLE’.
—

find that the European Commission made multiple manifest errors of assessment and infringed its duty to state reasons in relation to the characterisation of the existence of an advantage conferred by the loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg), both in the analysis of the comparability of the Sumitomo and Rabobank loans and in the application of the 2008 Reference Rate Communication;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/36

Action brought on 4 May 2016 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission

(Case T-207/16)

(2016/C 251/42)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision to exclude the applicant;

— annul the decision to register the applicant in and activate the Early Warning System and/or the Early Detection and Exclusion System, and

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of the decision of the competent authorising officer and/or the competent contracting authority with respect to the exclusion of the applicant and, second, of the decision of the competent authorising officer and/or the competent contracting authority whereby registration was applied for or effected, and the exclusion warning activated by the Commission, with respect to the applicant, in the Early Warning System and or in the Early Detection and Exclusion System which is operated by the European Commission.

The applicant submits that the contested acts should be annulled for the following reasons:

1. First, infringement of an essential procedural requirement.

2. Second, infringement of the provisions of Decision 2014/792/EU (1) with respect to the Early Warning System and Regulation 2015/1929 (2) with respect to the Early Detection and Exclusion System, the right to a hearing and the principle of proportionality.

3. Third, infringement of the general principles of good administration and transparency.

(1) 2014/792/EU: Commission Decision of 13 November 2014 on the Early Warning System to be used by authorising officers of the Commission and by the executive agencies (OJ 2014 L 329, p. 68)

(2) Regulation (ΕE, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/46

Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Globo Media v EUIPO — Globo Comunicação e Participações (GLOBO MEDIA)

(Case T-262/16)

(2016/C 260/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Globo Media, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Estropá Navarro y J. Calderón Chavero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘GLOBO MEDIA’ — Application for registration No 8 957 169

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14/03/2016 in Case R 561/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— As a consequence of the above, reject opposition No B1697179 and grant registration of the contested mark as regards the services requested in classes 35, 38 and 41;

— Order EUIPO and the other interveners to pay the costs of these proceedings if they oppose them and reject their claims.

Pleas in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(2) of the Treaty, incorrect assessment as to meeting the requirements of heading 19 (Clause 2.6) of the [European Union] framework [for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011)], infringement of the Treaty principles on public procurement and incorrect application of Article 7(2) of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14; ‘the Postal Services Directive’) — The methods of financing the provision of universal services applied by the Member States must be consistent with the principles of non-discrimination, transparency and equal treatment (including the choice of the provider of universal postal services by way of competition) arising from the provisions of the TFEU on the internal market freedoms and also with Article 106(2) TFEU, which was not the case in the present dispute.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/24

Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Scheffler v. EUIPO — Doc Generici (docfauna)

(Case T-299/16)

(2016/C 296/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Manfred Scheffler (Leininingen, Germany) (represented by: T. Büttner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Doc Generici Srl (Milano, Italy)

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 ‘docfauna’ — Application for registration No 12 660 056

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 885/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 6 March 2015 upholding opposition No B 2 354 523.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/33

Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Fratelli Polli (ANTICO CASALE)

(Case T-327/16)

(2016/C 287/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fratelli Polli, SpA (Milan, 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 word mark ‘ANTICO CASALE’ — EU trade mark No 10 531 432

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2016 in Case R 1337/2015-2

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 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and breach of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, to the extent that the Commission did not correctly assess whether the contested measure was selective in nature. — Article 185(2)(b) of the WIB 1992 and the excess profit exemption system arising out of it are open to all undertakings in a comparable factual and legal situation and which conduct the economic transactions that form the subject matter of the contested measure. The contested measure is therefore not restricted to specific undertakings that can be defined according to particular features, and is thus not selective within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. — In the alternative, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that the exemption of excess profit did not form part of the reference system. The exemption of excess profit on the basis of synergies and economies of scale in application of the arm’s length principle is a key component of the provisions that determine total taxable income, and thus cannot be regarded as constituting a derogation from the reference system that leads to selectivity. — In the further alternative, the Commission is unable to prove that the arm’s length principle was incorrectly applied by the Belgische Rulingcommissie (Belgian Tax Ruling Committee) in the context of the application of Article 185(2)(b) of the WIB 1992. The Commission’s reasoning is not coherent and takes into account important factors which are, however, contradictory or lack the necessary coherence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/40

Action brought on 1 July 2016 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO (MULTI FRUITS)

(Case T-355/16)

(2016/C 296/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘MULTI FRUITS’ — Application for registration No 13 646 542

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 in Case R 1043/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the ground of appeal and annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/29

Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)

(Case T-345/16)

(2016/C 314/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Edwards-Stuart, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DEEP PURPLE’ — Application for registration No 11 772 721

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 880/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— overturn the contested decision and allow the appeal;

— order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 5 November 2014;

— The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence of goodwill on the basis of the evidence filed in time;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/51

Action brought on 7 July 2016 — ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava and others/Commission

(Case T-364/16)

(2016/C 305/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. (Ostrava-Kunčice, Czech Republic) and 12 other applicants (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission adopted on or before 6 June 2016 to remove Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd from the list of companies listed under TARIC Additional Code A950 and instead list it under a new TARIC Additional Code C129 for all the TARIC Codes mentioned in Article 1(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2272 of 7 December 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2015 L 322, p. 21) and thereby reducing the rate of anti-dumping duty applicable to imports of SPT produced by Hubei to 0 %,

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea arguing that the challenged decision lacked a legal basis and therefore violates Article 1(2) and the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2272.

The European Commission based the challenged decision on the judgment of the Court of Justice in ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. and Others v Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd and Council of the European Union v Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd (Joined Cases C-186/14 P and C-193/14 P, EU:C:2016:209), by which the Court confirmed the judgment of the General Court in Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union (T-528/09, EU:T:2014:35), by which the General Court had annulled Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 imposing an anti-dumping duty on certain seamless pipes and tubes (‘SPT’) originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as it imposed an anti-dumping duty on products produced by Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd. According to the applicants, the European Commission wrongly extended the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2272 because the latter regulation was not the subject matter of the dispute in the previous court cases. Therefore, the European Commission could have adopted the challenged decision only after it had repealed Regulation (EU) 2015/2272.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/49

Action brought on 22 July 2016 — AIA v EUIPO — Casa Montorsi (MONTORSI F. & F.)

(Case T-389/16)

(2016/C 335/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Agricola italiana alimentare SpA (AIA) (San Martino Buon Albergo, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Casa Montorsi Srl (Vignola, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘MONTORSI F. & F.’ — EU trade mark No 5 681 663

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 1239/2014-1

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 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/27

Action brought on 26 June 2016 — City of Paris v Commission

(Case T-339/16)

(2016/C 314/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: City of Paris (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Assous, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6);

— order the European Commission to pay symbolic damages of one euro as compensation for the harm caused to the City of Paris as a result of the adoption of such a regulation;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) (OJ 2016 L 109, p. 1; ‘the contested regulation’) is null and void for lack of competence as a result of the European Commission’s improper use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. The Commission lacked substantive competence and infringed essential procedural requirements when adopting the contested regulation.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is null and void by reason of the infringement of primary law, secondary environmental law and subsidiary rules of EU law as a result of the failure to comply with the general principles of EU environmental law and with the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.

Concerning the compensatory aspect of the action, the applicant submits that the conditions giving rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union are satisfied to the extent that, first, the contested regulation contains irregularities both in form and in substance, secondly, the contested regulation occasioned actual and certain harm to the applicant and, thirdly, the direct causal link between the Commission’s conduct and the harm alleged cannot be disputed.
Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to be heard.

The Applicant puts forward that the Commission’s contradictory positions in its opening decision and in the contested decision have violated the right to be heard of the Applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/45

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Oma)

(Case T-421/16)

(2016/C 343/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Beste Oma’ — Application No 14 169 478

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 in Case R 91/2016-4

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 course of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Bester Papa)

(Case T-451/16)

(2016/C 364/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Bester Papa’ — Application for registration No 14 169 213

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 in Case R 94/2016-4

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 course of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 August 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Schwamm & Cie. (Le Coq de France)

(Case T-457/16)

(2016/C 364/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Schwamm & Cie. (Saarbrücken, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Le Coq de France’ — Application No 10 882 331

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 June 2016 in Case R 1786/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

The third plea in law claims an infringement of Article 15 of Regulation (ΕC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information. (2)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 383/16

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-401/16)

(2016/C 383/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta and M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/323/16 — Investigators (AD 7) and EPSO/AD/324/16 — Investigators (AD 9): Team leaders;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation 1/58, Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 1d of the Staff Regulations, by restricting the system of communication between EPSO and the applicant, which extends to the application form.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation 1/58, Article 22 of the Charter, Articles 1d(1) and (6), 27 and 28(f) of the Staff Regulations and Article 1 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations because the choice of second language is improperly restricted to solely three languages, namely English, French and German, to the exclusion of the other official languages of the European Union.

3. Third plea in law, alleging discrimination on the ground of language prohibited by Article 1 of Regulation 1/58, Article 22 of the Charter, Articles 1d(1) and (6), 27 and 28(f) of the Staff Regulations and Article 1 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, since the choice of English, French and German was arbitrary.

The applicant states, in that regard, that those grounds of challenge must be read in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 November 2012 in Case C-566/10 P, Italy v Commission, and of the judgments of the General Court of 24 September 2015, in the Joined Cases Spain v Commission and Italy v Commission (T-191/13 and T-124/13), and 17 December 2015 (T-275/13, T-295/13 and T-510/13, Italy v Commission), which have become final, since they have not been appealed by the Commission, and the implementation of which is not reflected in the present notice.