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

Action brought on 19 July 2018 — Ortlieb Sportartikel v EUIPO (Octogon)

(Case T-449/18)

(2018/C 311/21)

Language of the application: German

Parties

Applicant: Ortlieb Sportartikel GmbH (Heilsbronn, Germany) (represented by: A. Wulf and K. Schmidt-Hern, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of an octogon) — Application for registration No 16 047 466

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2018 in Case R 1634/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 5 June 2018 — Germann Avocats and XJ (*1) v Commission

(Case T-352/18)

(2018/C 301/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Germann Avocats LLC (Geneva, Switzerland), XJ (*1) (represented by: N. Skandamis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul the defendant’s decision contained in a letter received by the applicants on 2 April 2018, rejecting the joint tender submitted by them for a follow-up study on trade union practices on non-discrimination and diversity in the workplace (call for tenders JUST/2017/RDIS/FW/EQUA/0042);

— order the defendant to provide legally satisfactory transparency in the form of pertinent information and quantitative and qualitative analysis concerning the competition-related situation pertaining in particular to the successful tenderer and in relation to diversity concerns in the relevant markets for the tender at issue;

— order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of EUR 35 000, plus interest to the applicants, on account of the harm they allegedly suffered as a result of failure to respect their legitimate expectations, a loss of opportunity to perform the contract in question and infringement of other rights and principles;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the obligation to state reasons in its evaluation of their tender in respect of the call for tenders JUST/2017/RDIS/FW/EQUA/0042.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment in its evaluation of the applicants’ tender in respect of the said call for tenders.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to secure the applicants’ legitimate expectations as to a competitive market situation guaranteeing a level playing field among competitors, including by tolerating and/or favouring actual or possible abuses of dominant market positions, and that the defendant infringed the principles of equal treatment, sound administration, transparency and good faith in the procedure which led to the adoption of the contested decision.

(*1) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.
Action brought on 13 July 2018 — BRF and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos v Commission

(Case T-429/18)

(2018/C 341/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: BRF SA (Itajaí, Brazil) and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos SA (Itajaí) (represented by: D. Arts and G. van Thuyne, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 (1);

— in the alternative, annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700, insofar as it removes the establishments of BRF SA and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos SA identified in the Annex to the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 from the lists identified in the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation violates Article 296, second paragraph, TFEU by not stating the reasons on which the Implementing Regulation is based.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that by adopting the Implementing Regulation the Commission violated the applicants’ rights of defense as laid down in Article 41, second paragraph, of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in denying the applicants’ right to be heard.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation infringes Articles 12(2) and 12(4)(c) of Regulation 854/2004 (2) by assessing the compliance of individual establishments and the Commission commits a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation infringes the principle of non-discrimination by treating the applicants in a different way from other Brazilian exporters of poultry products in a comparable situation.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation violates the principle of proportionality by exceeding the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to protect public health.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation infringes Article 291(3), second paragraph of the TFEU and Articles 3(3), 10(4) and 11 of Regulation EU 182/2011 (3) by infringing essential procedural requirements laid down therein.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 of 8 May 2018 amending the lists of third country establishments from which imports of specified products of animal origin are permitted, regarding certain establishments from Brazil (OJ 2018 L 118, p. 1)

(2) Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 206)

(3) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 291)
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 July 2018 — McDreams Hotel v EUIPO — McDonald’s International Property (mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis!)

(Case T-428/18)

(2018/C 319/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: McDreams Hotel GmbH (Feldkirchen, Germany) (represented by: S. Schenk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd (Wilmington, Delaware, 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 mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis! — Application for registration No 1 47 35 435

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2018 in Case R 972/2017-2.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to bear the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 August 2018 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (ViruProtect)

(Case T-487/18)

(2018/C 352/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ViruProtect’ — Application for registration No 16 295 511

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2018 in Case R 1886/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 7(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 July 2018 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)

(Case T-466/18)

(2018/C 341/36)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Argyriadis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration in the European Union of the figurative colour mark ‘EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology’ representing a combination of the following colours: green and black — Application for registration No 16 180 821

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2018 in Case R 1359/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— hold this action to be admissible;

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold in its entirety the application No 16 180 821 for trade mark registration in the European Union with respect to all the claimed goods;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001;
—

The case-law of the Court requires that there be demonstated a sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals. With respect to the requirement that the infringment must be sufficiently serious, the criterion laid down in the case-law for holding that that condition is satisifed is that the Community body concerned has manifestly and seriously exceeded the limits of the discretion conferred on it. The scale and degree of the harm that has been caused, together with the number of those harmed, can be used as a criterion in relation to whether the body involved has manifestly and seriously exceeded the limits of its discretion. It should also be pointed out that there is a sufficiently serious breach of EU law if the body has committed the fault when not exhibiting the normal degree of prudence and diligence. The ECB failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaties and under its Statute to impose penalties on the NBG, because of its inadequate supervision of the Αchaiki Synetiristiki Τrapeza. The ECB for its part is responsible for checking whether the national banks of the Member States are operating in accordance with the provisions in the Treaties and in its Statute. In the event that it has not undertaken such a check we can speak of administrative inadequacies — infringement of the principle of sound managment — which could be covered if the ECB had taken the appropriate measures to ‘remind’ the NBG of its duties under the Treaties and to make it known it that it is not permissible to leave credit institutions without supervision, becaues that jeopardises the monetary stability of the European Union, which is the basic raison d’etre of the ECB. The ECB had an obligation to review whether the NBG fulfilled its obligations as a member of the European System of Central Banks, and in the event that it found that those obligations were not fulfilled, the ECB should have adopted the appropriate measures, rather than do nothing.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 August 2018 — Currency One v EUIPO — Cinkiarz.pl (CINKCIARZ)

(Case T-501/18)

(2018/C 364/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Currency One S.A. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: P. Szmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cinkiarz.pl sp. z o. o. (Zielona Góra, Poland)

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 CINKCIARZ — European Union trade mark No 13 678 991

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 June 2018 in Case R 2598/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 September 2018 — Aroma Essence v EUIPO — Refan Bulgaria (Washing sponges)

(Case T-532/18)

(2018/C 392/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aroma Essence Ltd (Kazanlak, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Nastev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Refan Bulgaria OOD (Trud, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: European Union design No 1333223-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2018 in Case R 1197/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision or alter it by dismissing the appeal of Refan Bulgaria OOD against the decision of the Invalidity Division of EUIPO of 10 April 2017;

— order EUIPO and Refan Bulgaria OOD to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Aroma Essence Ltd in the proceedings before the General court and before the Third Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the principle of sound administration;

— Infringement of Articles 53(1)(2) and 60(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in conjunction with Articles 28(1)(b)(i)(v)(vi), 30(1) and 36(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002;

— Infringement of the principle of legal certainty, equal treatment and sound administration;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 August 2018 — Kaddour v Council

(Case T-510/18)

(2018/C 373/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damas, Syria) (represented by: V. Davies and V. Wilkinson, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the 2018 Measures insofar as they apply to Dr Kaddour; and

— order the Council to pay Dr Kaddour’s costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application is directed against Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 1), insofar as those measures apply to the applicant (‘the 2018 Measures’).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the 2018 Measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of Articles 27 and 28(2) of Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836 (3) and Article 15(1b) of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1828 (4).

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the 2018 Measures amount to a breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the European Convention of Human Rights in regard to the applicant’s rights to respect for his reputation and peaceful enjoyment of his property and the principle of proportionality.

(1) Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14).

(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1).

(3) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836 of 12 October 2015 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 266, p. 75).

(4) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1828 of 12 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 266, p. 1).
—

Annul the decisions adversely affecting the various applicants consisting of the decisions of the appointing authority not to grant them reimbursement of school fees for the year 2017/2018, which were made in various ways according to the specific circumstances of each of the applicants: — either by means of an individual decision (and more specifically an email) specifically indicating the refusal of the reimbursement; — or by the reference to ‘processed’ in their Sysper account and considered as a rejection decision by the applicant since the subsequent salary slip, in the following month (at the earliest on the 10th with regard to the date of transmission of the salary slips) does not include any reimbursement or only a reimbursement of transport costs; — or by a total failure to process the application which is considered, after four months from the date of its submission, to be implicitly rejected;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) by the appointing authority when it based its refusal to promote the applicant on a previously imposed penalty, when that penalty had already affected the applicant’s career by a relegation in step. Moreover, the contested decision was allegedly adopted on the ground that the penalty was related to the applicant’s conduct while on active duty, whereas the decision to impose a penalty of 2016 indicated that the acts in question were totally unconnected to the applicant’s duties and responsibilities.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 September 2018 — Lupu v EUIPO — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Djili DS)

(Case T-558/18)

(2018/C 408/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Victor Lupu (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: P. A. Acsinte, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Dulovo, Bulgaria)

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 Djili DS — Application for registration No 8 404 551

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 June 2018 in Case R 2391/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the opposition against the registration of the mark applied for (EUTM application 8 404 551) and/or cancel/declare the registration invalid.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

— Infringement of Rule 20(7)(a) and (c) of the Commission Regulation (EC) no. 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) no. 40/94 on the Community trade mark;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 October 2018 — Grupo textil brownie v EUIPO — The Guide Association (BROWNIE)

(Case T-598/18)

(2018/C 427/132)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grupo textil brownie, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza and J. C. Quero Navarro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Guide Association (London, United Kingdom)

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 word mark — Application for registration No 14 016 844

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2018 in Case R 2680/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 1 October 2018 — Hermann Albers v Commission

(Case T-597/18)

(2018/C 427/131)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hermann Albers e.K. (Neubörger, Germany) (represented by: S. Roling, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018 relating to its aid complaint regarding the provision laid down in Paragraph 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law of Lower Saxony relating to Local Transport; ‘the NNVG’) (Case SA. 46697 (2017/NN)) (OJ 2018 C 292, p. 2).

The action is based on a single plea, namely that, contrary to the view taken by the Commission, Paragraph 7a of the NNVG represents new aid which is subject to an obligation of notification.
—

annul the defendant’s Decision C(2018) 5432 final of 3 August 2018 on the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — GESTDEM 2018/2506 and order the defendant to grant the applicant access to the documents in the proceedings relating to State aid SA.24221(2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Austria for the Klagenfurt airport, Ryanair and other airlines using the airport (OJ 2018 L 107, p. 1);
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that there has been no evidence submitted in the proceedings proving that the applicant has carried out terrorist act.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 October 2018 — Balani Balani and Others v EUIPO — Play Hawkers (HAWKERS)

(Case T-651/18)

(2019/C 4/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Sonu Gangaram Balani Balani, Anup Suresh Balani Shivdasani and Amrit Suresh Balani Shivdasani (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: A. Díaz Marrero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Play Hawkers, SL (Elche, 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 European Union figurative mark HAWKERS — Application for registration No 15 746 209

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 August 2018 in Case R 396/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and give judgment declaring that the trade mark applied for, under No 15 746 209, and which was granted in part, is also granted for the rest of the goods applied for: Watches; Chronometers (watches); Sports watches; Jewellery; Imitation jewellery; Jewellery, including imitation jewellery and costume jewellery; Clocks and watches; Horological goods; Cases for clocks and watches;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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