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

Action brought on 28 October 2021 — Les Bordes Golf International v EUIPO — Mast-Jägermeister (LES BORDES)

(Case T-696/21)

(2022/C 2/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Les Bordes Golf International (Saint-Laurent-Nouan, France) (represented by: M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mast-Jägermeister SE (Wolfenbüttel, Germany)

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 LES BORDES — Application for registration No 18 082 876

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 September 2021 in Case R 67/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— to reinstate the decision of 17 April 2020 of the Opposition Division in Opposition No B 3 094 876; and

— order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, including the costs of proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 September 2021 — European Lotto and Betting v EUIPO — Tipp24 Services (Cash4Life)

(Case T-554/21)

(2021/C 502/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Lotto and Betting Ltd (Ocean Village, Gibraltar) (represented by: D. Egan, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tipp24 Services Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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 Cash4Life — European Union trade mark No 15 065 964

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2021 in Case R 264/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Tipp24 to bear their own costs and pay those of European Lotto and Betting Ltd.

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 5 November 2021 — Gusachenka v Council

(Case T-579/21)

(2022/C 11/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Siarhei Gusachenka (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— 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-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.

(1) OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3.

(2) OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 November 2021 — Allessa v EUIPO — Dumerth (CASSELLAPARK)

(Case T-701/21)

(2022/C 2/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Allessa GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. Fröhlich, M. Hartmann and H. Lerchl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carim Dumerth (Frankfurt am Main)

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 CASSELLAPARK — EU word mark No 16 917 429

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2021 in Case R 1043/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the right to be heard consisting in an adequate statement of reasons;

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

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

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

annul the implied decision of the defendant to refuse access to certain documents related to deforestation and forest degradation, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1) and to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the application of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community Institutions and Bodies; (2)
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 November 2021 — D’Amato and Others v Parliament

(Case T-722/21)

(2022/C 11/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Rosa D’Amato (Taranto, Italy), Claude Gruffat (Mulsans, France), Damien Carême (Argenteuil, France) and Benoît Biteau (Sablonceaux, France) (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and L. Panepinto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— order the annulment of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 27 October 2021 on exceptional health and safety rules governing access to the European Parliament buildings at its three places of work;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs, including those relating to the application for suspension of operation of the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law that are identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-710/21, Roos and Others v Parliament.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 November 2021 — Medela v EUIPO (MAXFLOW)

(Case T-744/21)

(2022/C 37/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Medela Holding AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Hartmann and S. Fröhlich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark MAXFLOW — Application for registration No 18 328 426

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2021 in Case R 876/2021-2

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)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 November 2021 — Borussia VfL 1900 Mönchengladbach v EUIPO — Neng (Fohlenelf)

(Case T-747/21)

(2022/C 37/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Borussia VfL 1900 Mönchengladbach GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Kitzberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: David Neng (Brüggen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Fohlenelf’ — EU trade mark No 12 246 898

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 September 2021 in Case R 2126/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of the applicant, including the costs incurred in the previous proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of 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 8 December 2021 — C&C IP UK v EUIPO — Tipico Group (t)

(Case T-762/21)

(2022/C 64/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: C&C IP UK Ltd (Bristol, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tipico Group ltd. (St. Julian’s, Malta)

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 t — Application for registration No 17 915 463

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2021 in Case R 2326/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the appeal brought by the Tipico Group Ltd. against the decision of the EUIPO’s Opposition Division of 19 October 2020 in Case B 3 080 138;

— order EUIPO, and Tipico Group Ltd. if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 December 2021 — Protectoplus v EUIPO (Li-SAFE)

(Case T-795/21)

(2022/C 73/76)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Protectoplus GmbH (Rensburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Li-SAFE’ — Application for registration No 18 288 094

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2021 in Case R 845/2021-1

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)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 December 2021 — just-organic.com v EUIPO (JUST ORGANIC)

(Case T-802/21)

(2022/C 73/81)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: just-organic.com GmbH (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Menebröcker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘JUST ORGANIC’ — Application for registration No 18 317 774

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2021 in Case R 1010/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as the EU trade mark application No 18 317 774 was rejected;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 18 January 2022 — XH v Commission

(Case T-522/21)

(2022/C 237/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: XH (represented by: K. Górny-Salwarowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision D/386/20 of 24 November 2020 concerning the refusal to rectify the applicant’s Sysper 2 file, upheld by decision No. R/125/21 issued by the Appointing Authority on 16 June 2021 in response to the complaint filed by the applicant on 22 February 2021;

— annul decision of 12 November 2020 (IA no 32-2020) concerning non-inclusion of the applicant’s name in the list of the promoted officials in 2020, upheld by decision No. R/80/21 issued by the Appointing Authority on 8 June 2021 in response to the complaint filed by the applicant on 5 February 2021;

— compensate the loss and damages of the applicant; (1)

— order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses.

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 an error of law and the irregularity of the contested promotion procedures: the violation of GIP 45 Decision C(2013)8968 laying down general provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; the violation of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the absence of actual comparison of the merits.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in applying the promotion criteria provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Two specific amounts of damages are claimed in the application, namely EUR 25 000 for non-material loss and EUR 50 000 in respect of the applicant’s alleged material damage.
Action brought on 15 December 2021 — Folkertsma v Commission

(Case T-778/21)

(2022/C 84/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rommert Folkertsma (Zierikzee, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— recognise the non-contractual liability of the defendant;

— grant a compensation for the material and moral prejudice suffered by the applicant due to the defendant’s unlawful conduct;

— if need be, annul the decision of the defendant dated 5 October 2021, rejecting its liability in the applicant’s removal from the SUBRATA Project in the Philippines; and,

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies, as to the unlawful conduct of the defendant, on three pleas in law:

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the breach of the defendant’s duty to give reasons.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of the defendant’s duty of diligence.

The damage suffered by the applicant is actual, certain and quantifiable. It consists in the loss of income for the duration of the service contract that the applicant had, then in the loss of a serious chance to have the contract renewed for another two years at it initial term and thirdly, to the breach to the applicant’s good name. The applicant searches the compensation of his material prejudice and of his moral prejudice.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 January 2022 — Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas v EUIPO — Benito Oliver (th pharma)

(Case T-27/22)

(2022/C 109/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Innovaciones Cosmético Farmacéuticas SL (Alhama de Murcia, Spain) (represented by: J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Ángel Benito Oliver (Pont D’Inca-Marratxi, Spain)

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 th pharma — Application for registration No 17 916 522

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2021 in Case R 1605/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 January 2022 — Motel One v EUIPO — Apartment One (APART MENT ONE SLEEP CLEVER.)

(Case T-15/22)

(2022/C 84/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Motel One GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Hartmann, S. Fröhlich and H. Lerchl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apartment One GbR (Grasbrunn, Germany)

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 EU figurative mark APART MENT ONE SLEEP CLEVER. — Application No 18 009 642

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2021 in Case R 564/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 18 January 2022 — Polynt v ECHA

(Case T-29/22)

(2022/C 119/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polynt SpA (Scanzorosciate, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and S. Abdel-Qader, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— annul the Decision of the ECHA Board of Appeal of 9 November 2021in case A-009-2020;

— declare — or order ECHA to adopt a new decision declaring — that the applicant is released from the obligation to provide any further information to ECHA following the cease of production due to force majeure; and

— order ECHA to pay all costs of these proceedings and those incurred by the appellant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and a refund of the fees paid under those proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred in law, when it held that the cease of manufacture of the substance 1,3-dioxo-2-benzofuran-5-carboxylic acid with nonan-1-ol (EC Number 941-303-6) (hereinafter ‘"the substance’) for reasons of force majeure does not relieve the appellant from the obligation to provide the information requested in the initial compliance check decision on the substance.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal distorted the evidence on record and on that basis (i) reached a wrong legal conclusion and (ii) required the applicant to bring evidence by reference to unsubstantiated hypothesis.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal wrongly interpreted and applied Articles 42(1) and 50(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (‘REACH’). (1).

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal wrongly interpreted and applied Articles 5 and 6 of the REACH.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal wrongly held that the guidance available on the website of ECHA on the consequences of the cease of manufacture did not give the applicant precise assurances and that ECHA did not breach the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal wrongly interpreted and applied the principle of proportionality and the right to good administration.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 January 2022 — Weider Germany v EUIPO — Den i Nosht (YIPPIE!)

(Case T-45/22)

(2022/C 109/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Weider Germany GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Pfeifer and N. Böhmer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Den i Nosht Ltd (Gorna Oryahovitsa, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark YIPPIE! — EU trade mark No 12 411 567

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 November 2021 in Case R 2227/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division in Case 36 243 C; and

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the potential intervener (‘Den i Nosht’ Limited) to pay the costs of the invalidity proceedings and of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

condemn the defendant to compensate the damages caused to the applicant, in the amount to be determined according to the formula referred to under paragraph 74 (of the application), or in any other amount the Court may find just and fair (in the denied and not believed hypothesis in which the Court does not order what mentioned under items 2, 3 and 4 above); and,