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

Action brought on 5 December 2018 — B.D. v EUIPO — Philicon 97 (PHILIBON)

(Case T-717/18)

(2019/C 54/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: B.D. — Boyer Developpement (Moissac, France) (represented by: E. Junca, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Philicon 97 AD (Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark PHILIBON — European Union trade mark No 9 690 041

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2018 in Case R 375/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 21 December 2017;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal applied the provisions of Regulation 2017/1001, which was not in force on the date of the cancellation request submitted to EUIPO. The Chamber failed to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 8(5) in conjunction with Article 53 of Regulation 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 November 2018 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — Intercontinental Great Brands (gullón TWINS COOKIE SANDWICH)

(Case T-677/18)

(2019/C 35/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Galletas Gullón, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: S. Martínez-Almeida y Alejos-Pita, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intercontinental Great Brands LLC (East Hanover, New Jersey, United States of America)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark gullón TWINS COOKIE SANDWICH — Application for registration No 13 877 543

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2018 in Case R 2378/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, along with the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Daimler v EUIPO (ROAD EFFICIENCY)

(Case T-749/18)

(2019/C 65/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ROAD EFFICIENCY — Application for registration No 15 814 536

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2018 in Case R 2701/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law
Action brought on 7 December 2018 — Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulou-Chrysanthaki v Commission

(Case T-721/18)

(2019/C 54/41)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: Zoe Apostolopoulou and Anastasia Apostolopoulou-Chrysanthaki (Athens, Greece) (represented by: D. Gouskos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— uphold the action and order the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay to each of the applicants the total sum of five hundred thousand euros, that sum being broken down in the pleadings;

— order the defendants to refrain in future from any attack on the character of the applicants;

— order the first named defendant to restore the honour and reputation of the applicants by means of a declaration before the Efeteio Athinon (Athens Court of Appeal), before which is pending on appeal the defendant’s action dated 11/09/2017 with the general registry number 572461/2017 and special registry number 1898/2017 (objections of the applicants), within which the first defendant resorted to falsehoods that are denied and insulting statements with respect to the applicants;

— order the defendants to pay the general costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought against the European Commission and the European Union. Given that the latter is always represented before the General Court by the institution to which the contested act or conduct is attributed, the Commission is consequently called as the only defendant to this action.

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

1. The first plea in law is based on an infringement of the human dignity and the character of the applicants, by reason of the defamatory arguments of the Commission before the Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon (First instance court of Athens) and infringement of the principle of sound administration, with the aim of proceeding to enforcement against the applicants.

2. The second plea in law is based on the infringement of the principles of legality, good faith and protection of legitimate expectations, by reason of the Commission’s argument that the applicants as partners are legally responsible and that the undertaking had no legal personality, although it has repeatedly entered into contracts knowing that under Greek law and according the statutes of the undertaking they had no personal liability for the obligations of the undertaking.

3. The third plea in law is based on the infringement of the right to an effective remedy before an independent court or tribunal, in that the applicants were not parties to the proceedings in which the enforcement orders were issued.
1.

First plea in law in support of the principal claim: error of law and incorrect assessment of the available evidence The Hungarian authorities granted unlawful State aid to 21 competitors of the applicant, in breach of Article 107(1) TFEU. That aid was not intended solely for the additional costs incurred in employing disabled workers, but was also to cover the general costs of the recipient undertakings, thereby distorting competition. In the decision primarily contested, the Commission indicated that the total amount of the aid granted to the recipient undertakings does not exceed the total amount of the aid that may be granted in accordance with Articles 41 and 42 of the General block exemption Regulation, (1) and that, in principle, the contested aid is therefore compatible with the internal market for the purposes of Article 107(3) TFEU. The decision primarily contested does not address the injurious effects for the applicant of the national measures by which the aid was allocated, and thereby infringes the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU.
Action brought on 7 December 2018 — Barata v Parliament

(Case T-723/18)

(2019/C 72/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: João Miguel Barata (Evere, Belgium) (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, first, the decision of 23 July 2018 of the European Parliament’s General Secretariat, which rejected the applicant’s complaints under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, lodged on 2 February 2018 and 13 April 2018;

— annul, second, the decision of 22 March 2018 of the Director for Human Resources Development refusing to review the applicant’s application to participate in the 2017 certification process training scheme and effectively excluding him from the 2017 certification process,

— annul, third, the decisions of 8 December 2017 and 21 December 2017 of the Director for Human Resources Development to consider the applicant’s application as inadmissible, solely due to the lack of the index in his application for the purposes of the training programme under the 2017 certification procedure;

— annul, fourth, the Parliament’s decision of 1 March 2018 notifying the applicant of general results and not including him in the list of the selected officials for 2017 certification procedure, as a result of inadmissibility of the application;

— annul, fifth, the internal notice of competition of 22 September 2017 circulated among the staff;

— annul, lastly, the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid training programme.

— declare, as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, Article 90 of the Staff Regulation invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings, under Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons, breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and breach of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and sound administration, breach of the right of defence and rights to be heard of the applicant and thereby breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

3. Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and also alleging manifest error of assessment.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1/58, (1) and, further, breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

(1) Regulation No. 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958 (I), p. 59).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)

(Case T-20/19)

(2019/C 82/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pablosky, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: docPrice GmbH (Koblenz, Germany)

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 mediFLEX easystep — Application for registration No 15 730 872

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 in Case R 77/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— reverse the contested decision;

— reject the EUTM No 15 730 872 in its entirety as regards products included in classes 10 and 25;

— award the costs to the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 January 2019 — Thai World Import & Export v EUIPO — Elvir (Yaco)

(Case T-3/19)

(2019/C 72/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Thai World Import & Export Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand) (represented by: S. Bénoliel-Claux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elvir (Conde sur Vire, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark ‘Yaco’ — Application for registration No 14 980 148

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2018 in Case R 319/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 25 January 2019 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-46/19)

(2019/C 93/100)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and A-E. Vasilopoulou, as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as that decision imposed on the Hellenic Republic one-off and flat-rate financial corrections, amounting to a gross sum of EUR 25 092 988,84 and a net sum of EUR 24 851 438,56, following the inquiry ΑΑ/2016/013/GR with respect to area-based payments for the claim years 2015/2016 (financial years 2016 and 2017, pages 63-74 of the summary report); and order the defendant to pay the legal costs of the Hellenic Republic.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. The first plea in law is based on an infringement by the Commission of Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation No 1307/2013, (1) with respect to the interpretation and application of the term ‘permanent grassland’.

2. The second plea in law is based on defective reasoning with respect to an infringement of Article 296 TFEU, infringement of Article 18(5) of Regulation No 640/2014, (2) of the LPIS quality assurance guidelines (Executable Test Suite (ETS) LPIS data quality measures, version 6.0), and of the principle of proportionality.

3. The third plea in law is based on a defective statement of reasons by the defendant as to the imposition of one-off corrections in addition to the flat-rate correction.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013, L 347, p. 608).

(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance (OJ 2014, L 181, p. 48).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)

(Case T-21/19)

(2019/C 93/92)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pablosky, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: docPrice GmbH (Koblenz, Germany)

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 figurative mark mediFLEX easystep — Application for registration No 15 730 898

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 in Case R 76/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— reverse the contested decision;

— reject the EUTM No 15 730 898 in its entirety as regards products included in classes 10 and 25;

— award the costs to the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 February 2019 — Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke v EUIPO (Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline)

(Case T-69/19)

(2019/C 112/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline — Application for registration No 17 126 517

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2018 in Case R 412/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and allow EU trade mark application No 17 126 517, thus far rejected, to proceed to registration;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
Action brought on 21 January 2019 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-38/19)

(2019/C 103/67)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, P. Barros da Costa, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Commission Decision C(2018) 7424 of 16 November 2018, notified on 19 November 2018, 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), (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the sum of EUR 8 703 417,29relating to expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic in connection with cross-compliance, in the financial years from 2014 to 2016;

— Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on two principal pleas in law and one subsidiary plea.

First plea in law: error of law in finding that the Portuguese system is too lenient — infringement of Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (2) and infringement of the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1)(c), and Article 71 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009. (3)

Second plea in law:

1. ‘Calculation of the financial correction’ — Error of law, infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and proportionality, and of Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 by the Commission;

2. Infringement of the principle of proportionality.

Subsidiary plea:

Average penalty and lack of technical precision of Commission document C(2015) 3675 (annex A.5) — error of law and infringement of the principle of proportionality.

(1) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1841 of 16 November 2016 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(2018) 7424) (OJ 2018 L 298, p. 34).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Abarca v EUIPO — Abanca Corporación Bancaria (ABARCA SEGUROS)

(Case T-106/19)

(2019/C 131/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Abarca — Companhia de Seguros SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J. Pimenta and Á. Pinho, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Abanca Corporación Bancaria, SA (Betanzos, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark ABARCA SEGUROS in colours pink, light blue, light green and black — Application for registration No 16 041 519

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2018 in Case R 1370/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— totally alter the contested decision;

— as a consequence, grant EUTM registration No 16 041 519 in its entirety;

— order the other parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those of the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Rot Front v EUIPO — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (РОШЕН)

(Case T-63/19)

(2019/C 122/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rot Front OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (Kiev, Ukraine)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark РОШЕН — International registration designating the European Union No 11 233 784

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2018 in Case R 1872/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (CNTX)

(Case T-98/19)

(2019/C 139/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark CNTX — Application for registration No 15 368 954

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1064/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;