ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/34

Action brought on 4 January 2016 — Allstate Insurance v OHIM (DRIVEWISE)

(Case T-3/16)

(2016/C 078/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Allstate Insurance Company (Northfield, United States) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘DRIVEWISE’ — Application for registration No 13 455 019

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2015 in Case R 956/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 8 October 2015 in Case R 956/2015-2 concerning Community Trademark Application No. 013 455 019 ‘DRIVEWISE’;

— order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation No. 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/45

Appeal brought on 9 February 2016 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-45/11, De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-55/16 P)

(2016/C 106/54)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Uphold the present appeal and, reversing the judgment under appeal in part, set aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 61 to 67 of that judgment;

— Consequently, order the EIB to pay compensation to Dr De Nicola for the harm suffered, as requested in the application instituting proceedings, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to a different chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the paragraphs set aside; and order the EIB to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present case is in essence identical to Cases F-55/08 and F-59/09, which involved proceedings between the appellant and the European Investment Bank.

The appellant states, in this regard, that, in the judgment under appeal, no adjudication was made on the forms of order seeking annulment of the staff report relating to 2009, of the decision of 25 March 2010 refusing promotion, of the 2009 guidelines, of the EIB President’s two letters of 17 and 30 November 2010, and of ‘all related, consequent and prior measures’.

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

1. First ground: obligation to set aside the 2009 guidelines and the EIB President’s letters of 17 and 30 November 2010. — The appellant submits, in particular, in this regard, that if the Court were to determine that the guidelines in question are unlawful, their setting-aside would oblige the EIB to carry out its own assessments in accordance with more appropriate criteria which safeguard the appellant and his rights.

2. Second ground: the contractual nature of the relationship between the appellant and the EIB. — The appellant argues in this connection that he sought damages for breach in respect of the EIB’s contractual liability, and not in respect of the European Union’s non-contractual liability. The judgment under appeal, inter alia, treats the agents of the EIB in the same way as officials of the other European institutions, even though the employment relationship at issue in the proceedings is governed by private law, thus rendering the legal rules laid down for civil servants inapplicable to the present case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/39

Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Haw Par v OHIM — Cosmowell (GelenkGold)

(Case T-25/16)

(2016/C 106/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Haw Par Corp. Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: R. Härer, C. Schultze, J. Ossing, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger, C. Gehweiler, C. Brockmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cosmowell GmbH (Sankt Johann in Tirol, Austria)

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: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘GelenkGold’ — Community trade mark No 9 957 978

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 November 2015 in Case R 1907/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs that the applicant incurred before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/31

Action brought on 25 January 2016 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-27/16)

(2016/C 111/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Kraehling, Agent, and S. Lee and M. Gray, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul part of Article 1 of the Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of the European Commission of 13 November 2015 (1) which held inter alia that part of the agricultural expenditure concerning the calculation of the Value of Marketed Production declared by the United Kingdom was incurred contrary to Union Law, and cannot be financed under the EAGF and the EAFRD, requiring the annulment of five entries (the last entry on p. 42 and first four entries on p. 43) in the Annex to that Decision, which amount to a total financial correction of 1 849 194,86 euros; and

— order the Commission to pay the United Kingdom’s 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 has erred in law in its interpretation of the requirement that, when calculating the VMP of a Producer Organisation, for the purposes of establishing the ceiling on aid, a Member State may take into account the production of growers joining the organisation. In so holding, the Commission has ignored the clear provisions of, firstly Articles 3(1) and 3(3) of Commission Regulation 1433/2003 (2), and, second, Articles 52(1) and 52(2) of Commission Regulation 1580/2007 (3).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that, in its interpretation of the value of production of joiners, the Commission has acted in breach of the principles of legality and legal certainty, which apply with particular force where a measure leads to financial consequences and/or the imposition of a penalty.

(1) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 7716) (OJ L 303, 2015, p. 35).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1433/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards operational funds, operational programmes and financial assistance (OJ L 203, 2003, p. 25).

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ L 350, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/40

Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Munich (Representation of a cross on the side of a sports shoe)

(Case T-68/16)

(2016/C 111/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Munich, SL (Capellades, 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: EU figurative mark (Representation of a cross on the side of a sports shoe — EU trade mark No 2 923 852

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2015 in Case R 2345/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO to bear the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/34

Action brought on 28 January 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission

(Case T-41/16)

(2016/C 118/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry (Nicosia, Cyprus), Animal Breeders Association (Nicosia), Milk and Oil Products Production and Marketing Cooperative Ltd. (Nicosia), Süt Urünleri İmalatçulari Birliği Milk Processors Association (Nicosia) and Fatma Garanti (Güzelyurt, Cyprus) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, S. Gubel and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision Ares(2015)5171539 of 18 November 2015 and Commission Decision Ares(2016)220922 of 15 January 2016 in relation to the opposition procedures concerning the application for registration of ‘ΧΑΛΛΟΥΜΙ’ (HALLOUMI)/‘HELLIM’ (ΠΟΠ) (CY-PDO-0005-01243);

— declare the illegality of Articles 49, 50, 51 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, and the inapplicability of those provisions in the case at hand, insofar as they do not provide for a system ensuring the respect of the fundamental rights of the Applicants;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested Commission decisions are illegal insofar as they exclude the applicants from the procedure for the registration of Halloumi/Hellim as a protected designation of origin in the European Union.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Commission decisions are illegal insofar as they breach the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that Articles 49, 50, 51 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1) are illegal and should be declared inapplicable insofar they do not provide for a system ensuring the respect of the fundamental rights of the applicants.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 343, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/19

Action brought on 29 March 2016 — Coesia v EUIPO (Depiction of a circular shape formed by two oblique, symmetrical red lines)

(Case T-130/16)

(2016/C 165/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Coesia SpA (Bologna, Italy) (represented by S. Rizzo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Depiction of a circular shape formed by two oblique, symmetrical red lines) — Application for registration No 13 681 151

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 in Case R 1933/2015-2

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;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/49

Action brought on 5 January 2016 — Rabbit v EUIPO — DMG Media (rabbit)

(Case T-4/16)

(2016/C 156/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rabbit, Inc. (Redwood City, United States) (represented by: M. Engelman, Barrister, J. Stephenson, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DMG Media Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘rabbit’ — Application for registration No 11 701 869

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2015 in Case R 2133/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal was wrong in law in stating that, when comparing the respective goods/services of the EU trade mark application and the opponent’s EU trade mark registration, the comparison must consider only the goods and services as mentioned in the lists and not in the light of the actual use made of the marks;

— The Board of Appeal failed to state reasons for discounting actual evidence of use;
1.

First plea, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful to the extent that it misconstrues the provisions of Article 13 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (‘the CRD IV Directive’), and the provisions of Article L. 511-13 of the French monetary and financial code (‘the CMF’).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/22

Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Arctic Cat v EUIPO — Slazengers (Representation of a panther)

(Case T-113/16)

(2016/C 175/26)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Arctic Cat, Inc. (Thief River Falls, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: M. Hartmann and S. Fröhlich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Slazengers Ltd (Burnham, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of a panther) — International registration designating the European Union No 941 684

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 in Case R 2953/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as the appeal was dismissed and the partial refusal of protection of IR No 941 684 in respect of the European Union for the goods claimed in class 25 (‘Power sport vehicle-specific clothing, including protective outwear, balaclavas and face masks’) was confirmed;

— allow protection of IR No 941 684 in respect of the European Union also for the goods claimed in class 25 (‘Power sport vehicle-specific clothing, including protective outwear, balaclavas and face masks’);

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings;

— order Slazengers Ltd to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/32

Action brought on 13 April 2016 — Panzeri v Parliament

(Case T-166/16)

(2016/C 200/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pier Antonio Panzeri (Calusco d’Adda, Italy) (represented by: C. Cerami, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present action and, accordingly, annul the contested measures as unlawful;

— consequently, order the European Parliament to repay EUR 12 000, together with interest and adjustment for inflation, or the higher sum which will be paid in compliance with the contested order in the course of the present proceedings;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Memorandum No D 302 681 of 11 February 2016 of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, which contains the statement of reasons for Debit Note No 2016-207 of the same date appended thereto and concerning the recovery of sums alleged to have been unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance allowances.

The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-677/15, Panzeri v Parliament and Commission (OJ 2016 C 27, p. 74).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/39

Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Commission v IEM

(Case T-141/16)

(2016/C 191/51)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune)

Defendant: IEM — Erga — Erevnes — Meletes perivallontos kai chorotaxias AE (Athens, Greece)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 105 416,47, together with default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations on 1 July 2010 (2 %) plus 1 %, that is to say, at a total rate of 3 %, calculated from 6 July 2010 until the day on which that sum has been paid in full, less EUR 30 208 (which was paid by way of set-off on 4 September 2010);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action, brought before the General Court pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeks delivery of a judgment ordering the defendant to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 75 208,47, together with interest, in relation to contract FAIR-CT98-9544 for the project entitled ‘Development of a new process in fruit cleansing and peeling’.

The European Commission pleads, as the principal legal basis, breach of the defendant’s contractual obligations. It submits in particular that the sum which was paid to the defendant pursuant to the contract at issue was not used to carry out any work relating to the contract and that the defendant has not adduced any relevant documentary evidence. In the alternative, the European Commission puts forward a claim of unjust enrichment of the defendant, as provided for in Articles 904 and 908 of the Civil Code.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 April 2016 — repowermap v EUIPO — Repower (REPOWER)

(Case T-188/16)

(2016/C 222/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland)

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 ‘REPOWER’ — International registration No 1 020 351

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 in Case R 2311/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the trade mark at issue invalid for all of the services and goods not declared invalid by the contested decision, with the exception of the packaging and storage of goods (Class 39); travel arrangement (Class 39); fire-extinguishing apparatus (Class 9);

— order EUIPO and Repower AG to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 April 2016 — Policolor v EUIPO — CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt (Policolor)

(Case T-178/16)

(2016/C 211/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Policolor SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: M. Comanescu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt GmbH & Co. KG (Düren-Merken, 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 element ‘Policolor’ — Application for registration No 10 277 176

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2016 in Case R 346/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision in its entirety;

— in consequence, annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 16 December 2014 in opposition No B 1 991 457;

— dismiss the opposition made by the intervener with regard to the registration of the European Union trade mark No 10 277 176;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred during the procedure before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/30

Action brought on 3 May 2016 – Sun Media v EUIPO – Meta4 Spain (METABOX)

(Case T-204/16)

(2016/C 232/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Media Ltd (Central Hong Kong, Hong-Kong Special Administrative Region of China) (represented by: A. Schnider, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meta4 Spain, SA (Las Rozas, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘METABOX’ – Application for registration No 11 819 125

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 in Case R 307/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, to bear their own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the plaintiff in the proceedings before the General Court and in the appellate proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Articles 75 et sqq of Regulation No 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Corsini Santolaria v EUIPO — Molins Tura (biombo 13)

(Case T-145/16)

(2016/C 222/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laura Corsini Santolaria (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Merino Baylos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maria Molins Tura (Barcelona, Spain)

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 ‘biombo 13’ — Application for registration No 12 271 383

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2016 in Case R 744/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety as regards Classes 25, 35 and 42 in respect of which registration is sought;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law