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

Action brought on 8 August 2022 — Zitro International v EUIPO — e-gaming (Smiley wearing a top hat)

(Case T-491/22)

(2022/C 380/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Zitro International Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: e-gaming s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic)

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 (Representation of a smiley wearing a top hat) — Application for registration No 17 884 680

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2022 in Case R 2005/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and whoever opposes the action in this case to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 August 2022 — Levantur v EUIPO — Fantasia Hotels & Resorts (LUXURY BAHIA PRINCIPE FANTASIA Don Pablo Collection)

(Case T-505/22)

(2022/C 380/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Levantur, SA (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, E. Armero Lavie and C. Caballero Pastor, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fantasia Hotels & Resorts, SL (Zaragoza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark LUXURY BAHIA PRINCIPE FANTASIA Don Pablo Collection — EU trade mark No 16 020 547

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2022 in Case R 1973/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings (FANTASÍA HOTELS & RESORTS, SL) to pay the costs of the present action before the General Court;

— order the cancellation applicant, FANTASÍA HOTELS & RESORTS, SL, to pay the costs of the proceedings in Case R 1973/2020-1 and of the cancellation proceedings No. 36444C.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 16(1)(b), 7(2)(d), 8(5) and 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and of the requirement to state reasons and the principles of legal certainty and sound administration;

— Infringement of Articles 60(1)(c), 8(4), 95(1) and 97(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of Articles 7(2)(d) and 10(3) and (4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and the relevant case-law;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the decision does not establish that the restructuring plan is realistic, coherent and far-reaching and is apt to restore TAP’s long-term viability without relying on further State aid within a reasonable period of time.
1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of the rights of the defence. Firstly, it is alleged that the reasons have been stated inadequately. By failing to set out with sufficient clarity how the Council concluded that the alternative criteria in Articles 3(1)(b) and 4(1)(b) of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (3) apply to the applicant, the Contested Acts violate Article 296, 2nd paragraph, TFEU. Secondly, violation of the principle of personal responsibility is alleged on the grounds that by failing to identify the benefit received from, or support provided to, the Belarusian regime by the applicant, the Contested Acts infringe the applicant’s fundamental rights in violation of the principle of personal responsibility.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s fundamental rights have been violated both directly and indirectly by the defendant, as the applicant was not given the opportunity to express its views in the course of the audit leading up to the adoption of the contested decision even though the latter allegedly adversely affects the grant awarded to the applicant.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 September 2022 — Pierre Balmain v EUIPO — Story Time (Representation of a lion head)

(Case T-564/22)

(2022/C 424/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pierre Balmain (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá and S. Mainar Roger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Story Time sp. z o.o. (Poznań, Poland)

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 (Representation of a lion head) — Application for registration No 17 515 099

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2022 in Case R 96/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order anyone opposing the action to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 September 2022 — Noah Clothing v EUIPO — Noah (NOAH)

(Case T-562/22)

(2022/C 418/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Noah Clothing LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: W. Leppink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yannick Noah (Feucherolles, France)

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 NOAH — European Union trade mark No 5 620 968

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2022 in Case R 504/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it rejects the application for a declaration of revocation with regard to the goods ‘polo shirts’ and ‘sweaters’ in Class 25;

— annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the cross-appeal;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 19(1), 3rd sentence, and Article 10(7) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and with Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 September 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Kolios (HALLOUMAKI)

(Case T-594/22)

(2022/C 432/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kolios AE Elliniki Viomichania Galaktos (Kilkis, Greece)

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 HALLOUMAKI — Application for registration No 18 126 405

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2022 in Case R 19/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the EUIPO each bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by wrongly interpreting the services covered by the contested mark;
Action brought on 22 September 2022 — Silgan Holdings and Others v Commission

(Case T-589/22)

(2022/C 424/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Silgan Holdings, Inc. (Stamford, Connecticut, United States), Silgan Holdings Austria GmbH (Vienna, Austria), Silgan International Holdings BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Silgan Metal Packaging Distribution GmbH (Meissen, Germany), Silgan White Cap Manufacturing GmbH (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: D. Seeliger, H. Wollmann, R. Grafunder, Y.-K. Gürer and E. Venot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, in so far as it concerns the applicants; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicants, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2022) 4761 final of 12 July 2022 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (AT.40522 — Metal Packaging (ex ‘Pandora’)).

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following three pleas in law:

1. First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the defendant due to an infringement of the principle of subsidiarity The defendant was not competent to conduct the proceeding against Silgan or to adopt the contested decision. In view of the in-depth investigations and the fact that the national proceedings permitted a final decision, the Bundeskartellamt (German competition authority) was in a position to bring an end to the investigation procedure in the present case. The defendant was not in a better position to conduct the proceeding.

2. Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers The opening of the proceeding and the adoption of the decision by the defendant were guided by irrelevant considerations. They were carried out in order to circumvent the provisions provided for under German law on penalties imposed for infringements of Article 101 TFEU and to close a supposed loophole in German law on penalties.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 September 2022 — Sophienwald v EUIPO — Zalto Glas (Sw Sophienwald)

(Case T-597/22)

(2022/C 441/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sophienwald AG (Vaduz, Liechtenstein) (represented by: J. Hellenbrand, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zalto Glas GmbH (Gmünd, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Sw Sophienwald — EU trade mark No 13 448 981

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2022 in Case R 2113/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and of the proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Art 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Art 94(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1002 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Art 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Nienaber v EUIPO — St. Hippolyt Mühle Ebert (BoneKare)

(Case T-609/22)

(2022/C 441/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Nienaber (Cloppenburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: St. Hippolyt Mühle Ebert GmbH (Dielheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark BoneKare — EU trade mark No 10 055 903

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 August 2022 in Case R 436/2022-1

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 those incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division of the defendant and its Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 October 2022 — Shammout v Council

(Case T-649/22)

(2022/C 463/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Issam Shammout (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: L. Cloquet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/1277 of 21 July 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the applicant,

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1275 of 21 July 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2), as far as it applies to the applicant,

— sentence the Council to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those set forth by the applicant.

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 manifest error in assessing the facts. The Council made a manifest error in assessing the facts by considering that the applicant is a ‘leading business person operating in Syria’.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of proportionality.

3. Third plea in law, alleging disproportionate infringement of the right of ownership and of exercise of a profession.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons provided in Article 296(2) TFEU.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence and of the right to a fair trial.

(1) Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/1277 of 21 July 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2022 L 194, p. 15).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1275 of 21 July 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (JO 2022 L 194, p. 8).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 October 2022 — Vi.ni.ca.v EUIPO — Venica & Venica (agricolavinica. Le Colline di Ripa)

(Case T-627/22)

(2022/C 451/23)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Vi.ni.ca. Srl — soc. agr. (Ripalimosani, Italy) (represented by: S. Di Pardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Venica & Venica di Gianni e Giorgio Venica Ss soc. agr. (Dolegna del Collio, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘agricolavinica. Le Colline di Ripa’ in white, black, red and green colours — EU trade mark No 18 196 079

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2022 in Case R 90/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul or in any case amend the contested decision, declaring that the contested mark ‘agricolavinica. Le Colline di Ripa’ is valid since it has no similarity, visually, phonetically, or conceptually, to the earlier mark VENICA and since no risk of confusion between such marks exists;

— order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 October 2022 — Allegro v EUIPO (SMART!)

(Case T-658/22)

(2022/C 482/36)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Allegro sp. z o.o. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: M. Podbielska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SMART! — Application No 18 525 530

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 August 2022 in Case R 712/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 October 2022 — Torre Oria v EUIPO — Giramondi and Antonelli (WINE TALES RACCONTI DI VINO)

(Case T-655/22)

(2022/C 472/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Torre Oria, SL (Derramador-Requena, Spain) (represented by: Á. González López-Menchero and V. Valero Piña, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Simone Giramondi (Milan, Italy), Damiano Antonelli (Vignate, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark WINE TALES RACCONTI DI VINO — Application for registration No 18 194 623

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 August 2022 in Case R 822/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially revoke the contested decision;

— reject the contested EUTM application No. 18 194 623 for the designated services in class 35: ‘Advertising; business management; business administration; office functions’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 November 2022 — Nicoventures Trading and Others v Commission

(Case T-706/22)

(2023/C 15/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nicoventures Trading Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and 5 other applicants (represented by: L. Van den Hende, M. Schonberg, J. Penz-Evren and P. Wytinck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the annulment of the contested measure (1) in its entirety; and

— order that the defendant pay the applicants’ costs in these proceedings.

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 contested measure goes beyond the powers delegated to the Commission under Articles 7(12) and 11(6) of Directive 2014/40/EU (2), for the following four reasons: — by regulating a novel tobacco product, the contested measure unlawfully addresses an ‘essential element’ within the meaning of Article 290(1) TFEU; — the contested measure unlawfully introduces a new ‘particular product category’ for the purposes of Directive 2014/40/EU and thereby also infringes the general EU law principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations; — The contested measure introduces a new ‘particular product category’ that is inconsistent with the system of Directive 2014/40/EU, and is consequently unlawful; and — The Commission’s approach to assessing the existence of a ‘substantial change of circumstances’ exceeds the scope of the task conferred upon it.

2. Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons as required by Article 296 TFEU and infringement of the principle of good administration.

(1) Commission’s Delegated Directive (EU) 2022/2100 of 29 June 2022 amending Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the withdrawal of certain exemptions in respect of heated tobacco products (OJ 2022, L 283, p. 4).

(2) Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014, L 127, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 October 2022 — Tavitova v EUIPO — Uccoar (AURUS)

(Case T-662/22)

(2023/C 7/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Zalina Tavitova (Batoulieh, Lebanon) (represented by: V. Kojevnikov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Uccoar (Carcassonne, 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 European Union figurative mark AURUS — Application for registration No 18 205 163

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 August 2022 in Case R 2139/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— confirm the contested decision in so far as it allowed the registration of mark No 18 205 163, for non-alcoholic beverages, with the exception of non-alcoholic wine;

— annul the contested decision refusing registration of mark No 18 205 163, for the goods and classes ‘beers’ (Class 32) and ‘vodka’ (Class 33);

— grant the application for registration of mark No 18 205 163 for the classes and goods indicated;

— dismiss the company Uccoar’s contrary applications and form of order sought;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law