ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 November 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO (e.Gear)

(Case T-708/20)

(2021/C 28/95)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark e.Gear — Application for registration No 18 065 340

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2020 in Case R 561/2020-1

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 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

annul the Commission’s decision SA.40349 (2020/MI3) B2/AD/MKL/D*2020/101866 of 3 September 2020 rejecting their complaint of 20 June 2020 concerning the State aid granted to photovoltaic producers by the French State pursuant to the pricing orders of 10 July 2006, 12 January 2010 and 31 August 2010, on the ground that: — the applicants are entitled, pursuant to Article 24(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, to file a complaint with the Commission in order to report unlawful aid; — the Commission is required to open a preliminary examination without delay for any complaint relating to unlawful aid pursuant to Article 12(1) of Regulation EU 2015/1589; — the Commission is required to ensure that the provisions of TFEU on State aid are applied and it cannot fail to act.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 December 2020 — Veronese v EUIPO — Veronese Design Company (VERONESE)

(Case T-749/20)

(2021/C 44/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Veronese (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Herrburger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Veronese Design Company Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong)

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 figurative mark VERONESE — European Union trade mark No 8 831 844

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2020 in Case R 1951/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action and its annexes admissible;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 72(6) in conjunction with Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 December 2020 — OM v Commission

(Case T-728/20)

(2021/C 53/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OM (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should

— annul the decision rejecting requests for reimbursement 247-251 and 252-256;

— annul the decision of 23 March 2020 rejecting the complaint;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant invokes first of all the admissibility of her action against a decision notified through the rejection, dated 23 March 2020, of her complaint made on 5 December 2019, which the applicant considers to be a new decision, adopted on the basis of a new examination of her situation, after the administration accepted the main argument developed through her first complaint. As regards the substance, the applicant relies on four pleas in law:

1. First plea in law, alleging that the decisions are contradictory in relation to the change in reasoning following the previous reimbursement of similar expenses.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the lack of a specific and thorough examination of the requests for reimbursement of the medical expenses at issue.

3. Third plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the right to be heard.
—

annul i) the decision of the Selection Board of 5 February 2020, by which the applicant was not placed on the reserve list of Open Competition EPSO/AST/147/19 and ii) the decision of the Appointing Authority of 3 September 2020, by which the complaint of the applicant against the decision of the Selection Board of 5 February 2020 was rejected, to the extent it contains additional reasoning;
Action brought on 23 December 2020 — Anhui Wanwei Updated High-Tech Material Industry and Inner Mongolia Mengwei Technology v Commission

(Case T-764/20)

(2021/C 62/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Anhui Wanwei Updated High-Tech Material Industry Co. Ltd (Chaohu City, China), Inner Mongolia Mengwei Technology Co. Ltd (Bai Town, China) (represented by: J. Cornelis, F. Graafsma and E. Vermulst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1336 of 25 September 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in the People’s Republic of China (1);

— orders the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that Article 2(6a) of 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 (‘Basic Regulation’) mandates an approach and creates an exception that is not provided for in the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’), and therefore cannot be applied.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(6a)(a) Basic Regulation by the defendant in considering that Mexican financial statements were not readily available, in breaching its duty of care by failing to consider meaningful data that would discard Turkey as the appropriate representative country, and in not selecting Mexico as the most appropriate representative country.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of article 2(10) Basic Regulation, by making an adjustment for a notional commission and a manifest error of assessment in finding that Wanwei acts as an agent working on a commission basis, by not observing the fair comparison requirement, and by making an upward adjustment to the normal value for non-recoverable VAT.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 3(2) and 3(3) Basic Regulation and manifest error of assessment when establishing price undercutting and a consequent violation of Article 3(6) Basic Regulation by failing to conduct a segmented price undercutting analyses, by failing to make the necessary adjustments for quality differences and by failing to establish price undercutting for the product as a whole.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicants’ rights of defence by refusing to disclose certain information necessary to be able to comment on the undercutting analysis.

(1) OJ 2020, L 315, p. 1.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 January 2021 — Miquel y Costas & Miquel v EUIPO (Pure Hemp)

(Case T-17/21)

(2021/C 72/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Miquel y Costas & Miquel, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark Pure Hemp — Application for registration No 18 132 358

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2020 in Case R 853/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul/revoke the contested decision, in so far as it dismisses appeal R 853/2020-1 and partially denies EU mark No 18 132 358 Pure Hemp (figurative);

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those related to the proceedings before the Operations Department and before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by holding that the aid to Lufthansa is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.
1.

First plea in law: mandatory exclusion of a competitor. — The defendant should have excluded the competitor to which the contract was awarded from the procurement procedure. A senior employee of the applicant moved into a senior position at the competitor during the procurement procedure. He had knowledge of the content and bases of the applicant’s tender and was nevertheless involved in the competitor’s tender. — There are therefore grounds for exclusion based on an anti-competitive agreement and an attempt to obtain confidential information (Article 136(1)(c)(ii) and (v) and Article 136(2) and (4) of the Financial Regulation). The defendant unlawfully failed to explain these grounds for exclusion and exclude the competitor. — There is also an infringement of the procurement law principle of equal treatment, specifically the principle of the secrecy of competition. In accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, tenders that have not been submitted autonomously and independently of other tenders cannot be taken into account.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 February 2021 — Precisis v EUIPO — Easee (EASEE)

(Case T-66/21)

(2021/C 88/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Precisis AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: I. Fowler and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Easee BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

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: Application for European Union word mark EASEE — Application for registration No 15 514 706

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 November 2020 in Case R 2948/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and the other party before the Board of Appeal in the event that it intervenes in the proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 February 2021 — Masterbuilders, Heiermann, Schmidtmann v EUIPO — Cirillo (POMODORO)

(Case T-76/21)

(2021/C 110/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Masterbuilders, Heiermann, Schmidtmann GbR (Tübingen, Germany) (represented by: H. Hillers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Francesco Cirillo (Berlin, Germany)

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 POMODORO — European Union trade mark No 10 926 152

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 November 2020 in Case R 715/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the European Union trade mark (EUTM) proprietor’s appeal of 17 April 2020 in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

— First plea in law, alleging that the defendant was not allowed to take into account the EUTM proprietor’s statement of grounds and evidence for his appeal because the EUTM proprietor did not file his statement of grounds within the non-extendable time-limit of four months;

— Second plea in law, alleging that the new evidence is inadmissible according to Article 27(4) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 January 2021 — About You v EUIPO — Safe-1 Immobilieninvest (Y/O/U YOUR ORIGINAL U)

(Case T-50/21)

(2021/C 98/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: About You GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Safe-1 Immobilieninvest GmbH (Mauer, Austria)

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 figurative mark Y/O/U YOUR ORIGINAL U — European Union trade mark No 10 226 901

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2020 in Case R 529/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— hold an oral hearing;

— annul the contested decision with the consequence that EUIPO shall revoke the EUTM entirely;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the requirements of evidence in terms of legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectations;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Ruhorimbere v Council

(Case T-120/21)

(2021/C 128/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Éric Ruhorimbere (Mbuji-Mayi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 9 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 9 in the annex to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/21, Boshab v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Kande Mupompa v Council

(Case T-104/21)

(2021/C 128/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alex Kande Mupompa (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 7 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 7 in the annex to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/21, Boshab v Council.
Action brought on 29 January 2021 — Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main v Commission

(Case T-63/21)

(2021/C 138/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main Holding GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Schalast, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 (Case M.8870);

— join the proceedings within the meaning of Article 68(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court with the actions concerning the same decision M.8870, which, on account of the substantive connection between them, are cumulative and form a single decision closing the proceedings;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action against the Commission’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the E.ON/innogy concentration to be compatible with the internal market, (Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16), the applicant, in essence, relies on one plea in law, namely infringement of the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . (1) In doing so, it relies on the following arguments:

1. Dividing the proposed concentration into three transactions. — By artificially dividing the proposed concentration, the defendant infringed the Treaties of the European Union and the provisions of the Merger Regulation. In particular, it disregarded procedural rules relating to mergers and thereby failed to take account, or failed correctly to take account, of circumstances relevant to the decision. These included, in particular, the failure to take into account the legal, economic and factual link between the entire merger project, the incorrect characterisation of the transaction as an asset swap, the failure to take into account the competitive effects of the consideration of RWE AG’s 16,67 % share in E.ON SE and the incorrect assessment of the effects of the transaction under competition law.

2. Incorrect assessment of the proposed concentration and its effects on the European internal market. — The defendant also failed properly to define the market. In addition, the defendant had based its assessment of the effects of the transaction on an incorrect scope of assessment and had incorrectly assessed the effects on competition. In so doing, it also relied on materially incorrect facts. In that respect, the defendant came to the incorrect conclusion that the merger could be examined separately and that it had no adverse effects on Community-wide competition.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 March 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Rimex Trading (UNK UNIK)

(Case T-144/21)

(2021/C 163/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rimex Trading (Sofía, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the European Union figurative mark UNK UNIK — Application for registration No 17 940 710

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2020 in Case R 2889/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as in rejecting the opponent’s appeal, it confirmed the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting Opposition B 3 069 013 and granting EU trade mark No 17 940 710 UNK UNIK (figurative).

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

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 February 2021 — Maternus v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (WILD)

(Case T-116/21)

(2021/C 148/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Maternus GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Zoebisch and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark WILD — European Union trade mark No 9 515 248

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2020 in Case R 932/2019-1

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 the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 29 March 2021 — Autorità di sistema portuale del Mare Ligure occidentale and Others v Commission

(Case T-166/21)

(2021/C 189/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Autorità di sistema portuale del Mare Ligure occidentale and 15 other applicants (represented by: F. Munari, I. Perego, G. Roberti and S. Zunarelli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Commission’s decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against Commission Decision C(2020) 8498 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.38399 2019/C (ex 2018/E) implemented by Italy — Taxation of ports in Italy.

That decision classified as State aid the exemption, which is established for the port system authorities in Italy, from corporate income tax.

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following arguments and pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the decision is incorrect and infringes Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as it asserts that the Port System Authorities perform an economic activity under the terms identified by the Commission. The applicants claim in that regard that the Commission erred in considering itself entitled to transpose the criteria developed in the practice and case-law relating to the ports of other Member States or to other types of infrastructure, also infringing the general principles of equal treatment and sound administration.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the decision is incorrect and infringes Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the Commission misinterpreted the pleadings raised by Italy concerning the absence of a market, since that sector is not open to competition by virtue of a choice of the national legislature.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 345 TFEU and Articles 3, 7 and 121 TFEU, and also failed to observe multiple principles of EU law, since it failed to appreciate that the Treaty does not affect the right of Member States to maintain public ownership of port assets and infrastructure and to entrust and reserve the regulation and management thereof exclusively to infra-State bodies such as the Port System Authorities.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision is incorrect and infringes Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as: — it considered that there was a transfer of State resources; — it regarded the taxation regime applicable to the Port System Authorities as selective; and — it regarded the taxation regime applicable to Italian ports as liable to distort competition and trade between Member States.