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

Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipement)

(Case T-840/19)

(2020/C 45/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. van Werven, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) and Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Tinnus Enterprises

Design at issue: European Union design No 1431 829-0005

Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 in Case R 1008/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to suspend the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal and decide that said proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall continue;

— to join the current case before the General Court with the cases before the General Court in cases R 1006/2018-3, R 1005/2018-3, R 1010/2018-3 and R 1009/2018-3 lodged by Koopman International simultaneous with this action;

— order Tinnus Enterprises to pay Koopman International’s costs and fees.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘legal certainty’;

— The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘economy of proceedings’;

— The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘sound administration’;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 December 2019 – Franz Schröder v EUIPO – RDS Design (MONTANA)

(Case T-854/19)

(2020/C 54/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG (Delbrück-Nordhagen, Germany) (represented by: L. Pechan, and N. Fangmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: RDS Design ApS (Allerød, Denmark)

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 MONTANA – European Union trade mark No 10 708 881

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2019 in Case R 2393/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity and declare the European Union trademark No. 10 708 881 invalid for the contested goods and services;

— order EUIPO and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(1) and (2) 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;
Action brought on 13 December 2019 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-857/19)

(2020/C 61/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Franklin Dehousse (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well founded;

— set aside the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 14 October 2019 concerning a measure giving effect to the judgment of 20 September 2019, Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union, T-433/17, EU:T:2019:632), the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in that the contested decision was not an appropriate measure to comply with the judgment in Case T-433/17, Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the decision of the Court of 2016 on access to administrative documents, Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular public access to documents of the institutions and the duty of transparency.
—

The applicant conducted its services under FP6 and FP7 grant agreements. Be-tween 1 August 2015 and 30 April 2016, the applicant was working in a total of 37 research projects. From 1 May 2016 until 30 June 2016, the applicant conducted its services in a total of 38 research projects. All costs incurred during these timespans fulfil the eligibility criteria stipulated in the grant agreements entered into by the parties (Article II.14.1). These costs have not yet been reimbursed by the defendant. The defendant is obliged to reimburse these costs according to the grant agreements.
Action brought on 16 December 2019 – Albéa Services v EUIPO – dm-drogerie markt (ALBÉA)

(Case T-852/19)

(2020/C 68/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Albéa Services (Gennevilliers, France) (represented by: J.-H. de Mitry, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ALBÉA – International registration designating the European Union No 1 210 553

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2019 in Case R 1480/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul partially the contested decision which annulled the first decision of the Board of Appeal to the extent that the opposition No B002522988 against the Applicant’s trademark application in the name of Albéa Services was rejected for all the goods in classes 3, 8 and 21 and for the part of the goods of classes 16 and 20;

— alternatively, annul partially the contested decision which annulled the first decision of the Board of Appeal to the extent that the opposition No B002522988 against the Applicant’s trademark application in the name of Albéa Services was rejected for all the goods in classes 3, 8 and 21 and for part of the goods of classes 16 and 20 and should remit the case to the Board;

— award costs in favour of the Applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 January 2020 – M. I. Industries v EUIPO – Natural Instinct (INSTINCT)

(Case T-1/20)

(2020/C 68/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M. I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, Nebraska, United States) (represented by: M. Montañá Mora and S. Sebe Marin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, 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 INSTINCT – European Union trade mark No 5 208 418

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2019 in Case R 178/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and – if applicable – the Cancellation Applicant to jointly and severally pay all the costs of these proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 January 2020 — Dr. Spiller v EUIPO — Rausch (Alpenrausch Dr. Spiller)

(Case T-6/20)

(2020/C 68/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Spiller GmbH (Siegsdorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Stock and M. Geitz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rausch AG Kreuzlingen (Kreuzlingen, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Alpenrausch Dr. Spiller — Application for registration No 11 091 204

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2019 in Case R 2206/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, raising a plea of illegality due to infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations by Articles 33 and 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (‘the Implementing Measures’) adopted by decision of 19 May and 9 July 2008 of the Bureau of the European Parliament, on account, inter alia, of their lack of clarity and specificity. The applicant submits that the lack of specificity of the contested regulations requires a judicial interpretation of the legality of the Implementing Measures. However, the detail required for proof of the work of a parliamentary assistant was established by the Montel case-law only in 2017, as the Gorostiaga case-law of 2005 concerned only evidence of the payment of salaries through third-party payments. Thus, from 2008 the contested provisions presented elements of uncertainty and lack of clarity. The applicant adds that, despite the risks of legal uncertainty, the European Parliament did not clearly and specifically regulate the procedure for monitoring parliamentary assistance, or formalise the duty to create and preserve records on the part of the Member of the European Parliament or even the rules on acceptable, identifiable and dated evidence.
Action brought on 20 January 2020 — Datenlotsen Informationssysteme v Commission

(Case T-34/20)

(2020/C 77/79)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Lübbig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision of 20 September 2019 on the measure SA.34402 — 2015/C (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Germany for Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH (Commission document C(2019) 6836 final);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in applying a test to determine whether the activities of Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH (‘HIS’) are economic in nature that is incompatible with the case-law, since the Commission failed to have regard to the content of the ‘inseparability’ criterion and the autonomous significance of the ‘connection’ criterion.

2. Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in characterising HIS’ activities for German public universities as non-economic.

3. Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in failing to differentiate between HIS’ various fields of activity.

4. Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(b)(v) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) in classifying the direct funding as ‘existing aid’ on the basis that a market existed in 1976.

5. Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU in failing to state sufficient reasons for the applicability of Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 2015/1589 to situations not involving liberalisation.

6. Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 2015/1589 in classifying the direct funding as ‘existing aid’ on the basis that the measures underwent significant change.

7. Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 2015/1589 in classifying the direct funding as an ‘aid scheme’, since there was in fact a series of individual aid awards approved annually.

8. Infringement of the right to have one’s case heard within a reasonable period of time as part of the right to ‘good administration’ under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 February 2020 — Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou v EUIPO (MASTIHACARE)

(Case T-60/20)

(2020/C 103/47)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou (Chios, Greece) (represented by: A-E. Malami, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for international registration designating the European Union of the word mark MASTIHACARE — Application for registration No 1388895;

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2019 in Case R 692/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— admit the present action;

— annul the contested decision;

— permit the registration under No 1388895 of the international trade mark ‘MASTIHACARE’ designating the EU, for all goods in Class 3;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs under Article 190(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 7(2) 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 in the failure to state reasons in the contested decision of the Board of Appeal.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 84 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS): — on the elements in relation to which a finding of inadequacy must be made to justify dismissal before the end of the probationary period; — on the level of inadequacy that must be met to justify dismissal before the end of the probationary period.
Action brought on 20 February 2020 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament

(Case T-115/20)

(2020/C 129/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (Waterloo, Belgium), Antoni Comín i Oliveres (Waterloo) (represented by: P. Bekaert, G. Boye and S. Bekaert, lawyers and B. Emmerson, QC)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament, as reflected in his letter of 10 December 2019, not to announce in Parliament and refer to the committee responsible the request for the defence of the immunity of the applicants lodged by Ms. Diana Riba i Giner on their behalf on 10 October 2019 pursuant to Rule 7(1) and (2) and Rule 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law, alleging that the President of the European Parliament’s decision not to announce the request for the defence of the immunity of the applicants in Parliament and refer it to the committee responsible infringed Rule 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, in connection with Article 343 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Articles 9 and 18 of Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (1), Articles 6, 39(2), 41 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 2(1) of the Statute of Members of the European Parliament (2) and Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

(1) OJ 2012 C 326, p. 266.

(2) Decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2005/684/EC, Euratom), OJ 2005 L 262, p. 1.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to have one’s affairs handled fairly, impartially and carefully, and failure to state adequate reasons. — It is argued in that regard that: — the Presidency was not presented with all the relevant particulars of the case concerned with care and impartiality, before adopting the contested decision; and — in endorsing the note of the Secretary General of the Group of 12 April 2019, which contained erroneous grounds, the Presidency tainted the contested decision with the same defect.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Boshab v Council

(Case T-107/20)

(2020/C 129/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Évariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 7 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 7 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 February 2020 — Collibra v EUIPO — Dietrich (collibra)

(Case T-129/20)

(2020/C 129/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Collibra (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Renck, A. Bothe, lawyers and I. Junkar, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hans Dietrich (Starnberg, 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 collibra — Application for registration No 16 787 889

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 in Case R 738/2019-1

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 by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested Decision No EASO/ED/2019/509 is vitiated for the following reasons: — infringement of the applicant’s right to sound administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; ‘the Charter’), in view of the principle of impartiality, the duty of care and the principle of objectivity as well as the presumption of innocence (first ground for annulment as regards the first plea in law), — infringement of the applicant’s right to have her interests taken into account by the administration, as deriving from the right to sound administration (Article 41 of the Charter) and from the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials (Article 24 of the Staff Regulations) (second ground for annulment as regards the first plea in law), — those unlawful practices and omissions on the part of EASO being vitiated by manifest error of assessment, error of law and inadequate reasoning (third ground for annulment as regards the first plea in law).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 March 2020 — Ardex v EUIPO — Chen (ArtiX PAINTS)

(Case T-136/20)

(2020/C 161/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ardex GmbH (Witten, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lian Chen (Seseña Nuevo, Spain)

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 ArtiX PAINTS — Application for registration No 16 825 614

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2019 in Case R 2503/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the procedural rules derived from Article 24 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/626;

— Infringement of the procedural rules derived from Article 7(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Breach of the principle of the right to a fair hearing;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 April 2020 — Chiquita Brands v EUIPO — Fyffes International (HOYA)

(Case T-189/20)

(2020/C 191/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chiquita Brands LLC (Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States) (represented by: W. Pors, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fyffes International Unlimited Company (Dublin, Ireland)

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 HOYA in colours yellow, blue and black — European Union trade mark No 10 612 166

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2020 in Case R 962/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant the applicant’s application for revocation in full;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the full costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 64(1) 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;

— Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of the prohibition of reformatio in peius and Article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;