ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/52

Action brought on 29 June 2017 — Karl Storz v EUIPO (3D)

(Case T-413/17)

(2017/C 277/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG (Tuttlingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Gruber, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘3D’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 272 627

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2017 in Case R 1502/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 11 April 2017 in Case R 1502/2016-2 and register the trade mark ‘3D’, IR 1 272 627, designating the European Union for all the goods applied for including the goods which are still affected by 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 the Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/35

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

(Case T-448/17)

(2017/C 300/43)

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 12 915 021

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 in Case R 2291/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision insofar that it rejected the appeal lodged by Sevenfriday AG against the decision B2400482 of 7 October 2016 and consequently allow the application No 1105144 to proceed to registration as EU trade mark.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of the exception relating to the protection of court proceedings, contained in Article 4(2), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation. — It is argued that the requested document is a final administrative document, not protected by confidentiality or any other non-disclosure exception. Furthermore, even if such an exception were to apply in the present case, it is argued that the defendant has manifestly misinterpreted or misapplied it by failing to show how the disclosure of the requested document would undermine the protection of court proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 318/16

Action brought on 27 July 2017 — Printeos and Others v Commission

(Case T-466/17)

(2017/C 318/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Printeos, SA (Alcalá de Henares, Spain), Printeos Cartera Industrial, SL (Alcalá de Henares), Tompla Scandinavia AB (Stockholm, Sweden), Tompla France (Fleury Mérogis, France) and Tompla Druckerzeugnisse Vertriebs GmbH (Leonberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2017) 4112 final of 16 June 2017 amending Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes);

— in the alternative, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the amount of the fine imposed in Article 1 of the contested decision, and as a consequence (i) reduce the basic amount of the fine by 95,3671 % pursuant to point 37 of the Guidelines on setting fines and (ii) reduce, additionally, the amount of the fine, after deductions for leniency and settlement, by at least 33 %;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By judgment of 13 December 2016 (Case T-95/15, Printeos v Commission), the General Court annulled Article 2(1)(e) of Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014, in Case AT.39780, which imposed on the applicants a fine of EUR 4 729 000.

The contested decision contains additional information on the methodology which was applied and the facts taken into account by the Commission when setting and adjusting the basic amount of the fines in the 2014 Decision and when imposing a fine of the same amount as that imposed under the 2014 Decision.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and non bis in idem. — The applicants claim in this regard that the contested decision amends the 2014 Decision, despite its being final, with the sole exception of Article 2(1)(e), which was annulled by the General Court, and that it imposes again the same fine as that already imposed by the 2014 Decision and annulled by the General Court.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality of treatment in the setting of the amount of the fine. — The applicants claim in this respect that the contested decision makes exceptional adjustments to the basic amounts of the fines pursuant to point 37 of the Guidelines on setting fines, which result in discrimination detrimental to the applicants.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/38

Action brought on 28 July 2017 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)

(Case T-469/17)

(2017/C 309/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: The Scotch Whisky Association (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Rodríguez Domínguez and J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Estévez, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

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 word mark ‘JOHN COR’ — European Union trade mark No 10 965 937

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2017 in Case R 1290/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 64(1) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.
—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/993 of 12 June 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 67) , Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/994 of 12 June 2017 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 75), Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1459 of 10 August 2017 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 208, p. 38), and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1457 of 10 August 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 208, p. 33), insofar as those acts include the applicant in the list of entities subject to restrictive measures.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 330/17

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Esfera Capital Agencia de Valores v Commission and SRB

(Case T-499/17)

(2017/C 330/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Esfera Capital Agencia de Valores, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Pastor Palomar, F. Arroyo Romero and N. Subuh Falero, lawyers)

Defendants: Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

— Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 addressed to the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) approving a restructuring plan in respect of Banco Popular Español;

— Annul European Commission Decision 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 supporting the resolution plan for Banco Popular Español; and

— By virtue of the provision in Article 340 TFEU, declare that the SRB and European Commission are non-contractually liable and order them to make good the harm caused to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to the arguments raised in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía y Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board; T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán y Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board; T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board and T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

In particular, the applicant claims that the Commission misused its powers in the present case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/37

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Estévez Puerto and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case T-504/17)

(2017/C 347/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: José Ramón Estévez Puerto (Jeréz de la Frontera, Spain) and 14 other applicants (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul:

— Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board taken at its executive session of 7 June 2017 by which the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A was adopted;

— Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno y SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission andSingle Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/36

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Ruiz Sacristán and Arias Mosquera v Commission and SRB

(Case T-503/17)

(2017/C 347/46)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Jaime Ruiz Sacristán (Cuauhtémoc, Mexico), José María Arias Mosquera (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should annul the following measures:

— Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board taken at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A..

— Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, y T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/26

Action brought on 4 September 2017 — Demp v EUIPO (Representation of the colours grey and yellow)

(Case T-595/17)

(2017/C 357/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Demp BV (Vianen, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Gehweiler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Colour mark (Representation of the colours grey and yellow) — Application for registration No 15 439 987

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 July 2017 in Case R 1624/2016-5

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 347/47

Action brought on 28 August 2017 — Wall Street Systems UK v ECB

(Case T-579/17)

(2017/C 347/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wall Street Systems UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Csaki, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare null and void the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) on the contract award to another tenderer in the form of the appeal decision of 17 August 2017, as well as all future decisions related thereto;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The applicant is contesting the decision by the defendant regarding the contract award to another tenderer, in the form of the appeal decision of 17 August 2017, with the request for the annulment of this and future associated decisions (particularly any contract award). The aforementioned decision was handed down in breach of Decision (EU) 2016/245 of the European Central Bank (1) and applicable European law, in particular in breach of the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and cost-efficiency.

(1) Decision (EU) 2016/245 of the European Central Bank of 9 February 2016 laying down the rules on procurement (OJ 2016, L 45, p. 15).
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/36

Action brought on 6 September 2017 — Grupo Bimbo/EUIPO — DF World of Spices (TAKIS FUEGO)

(Case T-608/17)

(2017/C 369/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (México, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, abogado)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DF World of Spices GmbH (Dissen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TAKIS FUEGO’ — Application for registration No 11 841 087

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2017 in Case R 2300/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision;

— order the intervener to bear the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/23

Action brought on 11 August 2017– EIB v Syria

(Case T-539/17)

(2017/C 369/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:

— for payment of all sums due to the EU under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 8.01 and 8.02 of the Al Thawra Loan Agreement in its right of subrogation comprising: — 404 792,06 euro, 954 331,07 pounds sterling (GBP), 29 130 433,00 Japanese yen (JPY) and 1 498 184,58 American dollar (USD), the amount due to the EU as at 9 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 9 August 2017); — further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate specified in Article 3.02, until payment is made; — all applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional costs accruing from the due date until payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.

— In the alternative to the order above, and if the Court finds that the EU is not subrogated to the rights of the Bank, payment of all sums due to the Bank under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 8.01 and 8.02 of the Al Thawra Loan Agreement comprising: — 404 792,06 euro, 954 331,07 GBP, 29 130 433,00 JPY and 1 498 184,58 USD, the amount due to the Bank as at 9 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 9 August 2017); — further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate specified in Article 3.02, until payment is made; — all applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional costs accruing from the due date until payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.

— In any event, for payment of the amount due to either the EU or the Bank, as the case may be, for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising: — all principal and interest for each instalment; — contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate specified in Article 3.02, from the due date of each instalment until payment is made by Syria.

— For payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria has breached its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Al Thawra Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Al Thawra Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Al Thawra Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 8.01 and 8.02 of the Al Thawra Loan Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/37

Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Sánchez Valverde e Hijos v SRB

(Case T-515/17)

(2017/C 374/55)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sánchez Valverde e Hijos, SA (Montcada Reixac, Spain) (represented by: E. Silva Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, with effect ex tunc, thereby rendering it invalid and devoid of effects;

— Order the payment of compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 508 505,50.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/45

Action brought on 7 September 2017 — All Star v EUIPO — Carrefour Hypermarchés (Shape of a shoe sole)

(Case T-611/17)

(2017/C 374/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: All Star CV (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carrefour Hypermarchés (Evry, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark (Shape of a shoe sole) — EU trade mark No 7 497 373

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2017 in Case R 952/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 62, 63 and 64 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Articles 75 and 78 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Articles 63 and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of Articles 52(1) and 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Articles 52(2) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/50

Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Hola v Commission and SRB

(Case T-631/17)

(2017/C 382/63)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hola, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and C. Iglesias Megías, lawyers)

Defendants: Single Resolution Board and European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

— Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

— Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

— Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.