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

Action brought on 2 August 2021 — Quantic Dream v EUIPO — Quentia (Q)

(Case T-458/21)

(2021/C 382/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Quantic Dream (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Quentia GmbH (Gersthofen, 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 Q — Application for registration No 18 069 734

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2021 in Case R 2070/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— and, by way of correction, reject the opposition NooB 3 092 566 to the registration of the European Union trademark application Q Noo18 069 734 filed on 21 May 2019;

— order that the EUIPO and/or Quentia GmbH bear the costs involved in the proceedings before the EUIPO and before the Court by the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71(1)(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 7 TFEU;

— Infringement of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 July 2021 — Greenwich Polo Club v EUIPO — Lifestyle Equities (GREENWICH POLO CLUB)

(Case T-437/21)

(2021/C 401/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Greenwich Polo Club, Inc. (Greenwich, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: R. Zammitt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark GREENWICH POLO CLUB — Application for registration No 17 791 153

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2021 in Case R 300/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order that the contested decision is annulled, and the contested mark proceeds to registration in respect of the contested goods (as well as the rest of the goods not appealed), alternatively, that the matter is remitted to the EUIPO for re-consideration;

— order the payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the appeal.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that scope of the RDCT Cost Sharing Methodology as confirmed by the Contested Decision is unlawful. The RDCT Cost Sharing Methodology as confirmed by the Contested Decision unlawfully extends the application of the polluter pays principle to the sharing of costs for remedial actions exercised on basically all transmission network elements in the Capacity Calculation Region Core, albeit this is by law designed to be an exemption from the general obligation of network owners to maintain and expand their networks according to the market need (owner pays principle).
2.

Second plea in law: It is submitted that no ground for exclusion precludes the applicant’s right of access. In particular, the ground for exclusion set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not preclude the applicant’s request. The disclosure of the information requested is necessary for numerous purposes in the public interest. Therefore, a potential interference with privacy and the integrity of the individual is permissible. Furthermore, the risk of undermining must specifically and actually be raised and presented as an issue. The defendant has not however discharged that burden of raising and presenting an issue.
Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne v ACER

(Case T-484/21)

(2021/C 412/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A. (Konstancin-Jeziorna, Poland) (represented by: S. Goldberg, A. Galos and E. White, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of Board of Appeal in case A-001-2021 (consolidated) of ACER of 28 May 2021 (the ‘Contested Board of Appeal Decision’) dismissing the applications for annulment and remittal of Decision No 30/2020 of 30 November 2020 (the ‘Agency Decision’) on the Core CCR TSO’s proposal for the methodology for cost sharing of redispatching and countertrading (the ‘RDCTCS Methodology’);

— Order the defendant to bear the costs.

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 the following errors in law: an error in law by the Board of Appeal in finding that the competence of ACER was not limited by Article 16(13) of the Electricity Regulation and that ACER was effectively competent to adopt policy measures penalising cross-zonal transactions inconsistently with Article 16(13) of Regulation 2019/943 (1); an error in law by the Board of Appeal in disregarding the limits to the competence of ACER resulting from Article 9(11) of Commission Regulation 2015/1222 (2), and an error in law in finding that ACERs competence is ‘conferred’ by Article 6(10) of Regulation 2019/942 (3).

2. Second plea in law, alleging a failure by the Board of Appeal to provide adequate reasoning to its ruling and thus violation of Article 296 TFEU.

3. Third plea in law: an error in law that the Board of Appeal found that decomposition of flows does not contradict the definitions of Article 2 of the ACER RDCTCS Methodology.

4. Fourth plea in law: an error in law that the Board of Appeal found that the decomposition of flows in the ACER RDCTCS Methodology (overestimation of Loop Flow (LF) of importing bidding zones) does not infringe Article 74(6)(c) and (i) of Commission Regulation 2015/1222.

5. Fifth plea in law: an error in law that the Board of Appeal found that the value of the 10 % Loop Flow (LF) of threshold set by ACER is not too high, which infringes the ‘polluter-pays’ principle, as enshrined in Article 16(13) of Regulation 2019/943.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity (OJ 2019, L 158, p. 54).

(2) Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 of 24 July 2015 establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management (OJ 2015, L 197, p. 24).

(3) Regulation (EU) 2019/942 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 establishing a European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (OJ 2019, L 159, p. 22).
Action brought on 15 August 2021 — Lagardère, unité médico-sociale v Commission

(Case T-503/21)

(2021/C 422/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Lagardère, unité médico-sociale (Ghlin, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vanlangendonck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Declare Regulation 2021/953 (1) null and void.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1), in so far as the contested measure failed to have regard to the prohibition on the processing of personal data concerning the health of a natural person.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21(1) TFEU, which confers on EU citizens the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and of Articles 3, 35 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic (OJ 2021 L 211, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment. The applicant alleges, in that regard, that there is no factual justification for the contested acts.
10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of Article 20 of the Charter. The applicant claims that an official removed from post on grounds that are infinitely more serious than those on the basis of which the applicant was removed from post would have had a lesser penalty imposed on him or her than deductions from his or her pension under the Staff Regulations.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision not to implement the core sections (1) and (2) of the judgment of 16 December 2020 in case T-187/20, VP v Cedefop and, consequently, not to renew the employment contract of the applicant is vitiated by a violation of the obligation to state reasons;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 September 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-575/21)

(2021/C 462/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain), Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 1 431 829-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2021 in Case R 1006/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision to: — allow the applicant’s appeal, — dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicants’ applications to declare the contested design invalid, — order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;

— order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s fees and costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155);

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172);

— Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
—

annul the decision of the PMO.4 of 16 November 2020 rejecting the application lodged on 14 September 2020 in the name of the deceased to seek recovery of his national pension rights that were transferred to the EU pension scheme, together with any interest accrued on those rights for all those years, until repaid in full;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 September 2021 — Automobiles Citroën v EUIPO — Polestar (Device of two inverted chevrons)

(Case T-625/21)

(2021/C 471/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Automobiles Citroën (Poissy, France) (represented by: C. Weyl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Polestar Holding AB (Götenborg, Sweden)

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 (Device of two inverted chevrons) — European Union trade mark No 16 896 532

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 July 2021 in Case R 504/2020-4

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

Action brought on 16 September 2021 — Apart v EUIPO — S. Tous (Representation of the outline of a bear)

(Case T-591/21)

(2021/C 462/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apart sp. z o.o. (Suchy Las, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: S. Tous, SL (Manresa, Spain)

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 (Representation of the outline of a bear) –European Union trade mark No 8 127 128

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2021 in Case R 222/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision as a whole and alter the decision by invalidating the contested trademark no. 8 127 128;

— alternatively, annul the contested decision as a whole and refer of the case back to the Board of Appeal;

— order EUIPO and S.TOUS, S.L. to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and those of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(i) and (iii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Articles 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by lack of reasons on which the assumptions about the shape of the contested trade mark are based;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 October 2021 — CB v EUIPO — China Construction Bank (CCB)

(Case T-639/21)

(2021/C 481/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay-Ducamp, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: China Construction Bank Corp. (Beijing, China)

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 CCB — Application for registration No 13 359 609

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2021 in Case R 1305/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, uphold the opposition and reject the application for trade mark No 13 359 609;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

Application brought on 4 October 2021 — dennree v EUIPO (BioMarkt)

(Case T-641/21)

(2021/C 471/91)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: dennree GmbH (Töpen, Germany) (represented by: K. Röttgen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark BioMarkt in the colours green and brown — Application No 18 309 662

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 August 2021 in Case R 783/2021-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the partial refusal of the trade mark application and register the trade mark as it appears in the application.

Pleas in law

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

— 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 September 2021 — ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk v EUIPO — ESSAtech (Remote controls [wireless] (Accessories for -))

(Case T-611/21)

(2021/C 502/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk s.c. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: M. Oleksyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ESSAtech (Přistoupim, Czech Republic)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: EU design Remote controls [wireless] (Accessories for -) — EU design No 4 539 302-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 July 2021 in Case R 1070/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringements of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) thereof, and breaches of the rule of law established in DOCERAM, C-395/16, (1) as well as infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration);

— Infringements of Article 63(1) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 63(2) thereof, and breaches of the rule of law established in DOCERAM, C-395/16, as well as infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration).

(1) Judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM, C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172.
—

annul the Commission’s decision of 2 June 2021 refusing to grant the applicant’s requested access to Commission documents and the Commission’s decision of 11 August 2021 refusing to grant the applicant’s requested access to Commission documents, through the issuing of copies of all Commission communications (a) with the company BioNTech SE, (b) with the Federal Chancellery, Germany, regarding the company BioNTech SE and its products, (c) with the German Federal Minister for Health regarding the purchasing of vaccines to combat the coronavirus pandemic, from 1 April 2020 and in particular as regards the quantity of vaccines offered by BioNTech and their delivery times, in so far as those decisions do not grant the applicant access or grant him access only in part;
—

order the ECB to pay the applicant: — for violation of Article 8 ECHR regarding the disrespect of the applicant’s private life in its aspects of dignity and professional integrity, compensation of EUR 200 000; — for violation of Article 8 ECHR regarding the disrespect of the applicant’s private life in its aspects of her right to health, compensation of EUR 130 000; — for use of the flawed inquiry report and the annulled ruling in Case F-43/10 by sending these documents to [confidential], moral compensation of EUR 20 000; — for income loss, the amount to be calculated following the result of the pending Case T-500/16; — for destruction of the inquiry files, moral compensation of EUR 20 000; — for the delay in her appraisal and in the Annual Salary and Bonus Review (ASBR) procedure decision for the year 2007, covering the period from 2007 to 2021, moral compensation of EUR 52 000; — for the moral and material damage resulting from the lack of appraisal and of an ASBR decision, compensation of EUR 150 000; — for the definitive loss of chance resulting from the lack of a new inquiry (moral and material damages), compensation of EUR 700 000.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 October 2021 — BAWAG PSK v ECB

(Case T-667/21)

(2021/C 502/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG (Wien, Austria) (represented by: H. Bälz and D. Bliesener, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 2 August 2021 (1); and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 that the defendant is incompetent to impose absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) of the Austrian Banking Act (‘BWG’).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the imposition of absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) BWG is time barred.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant did not breach the large exposure limit provided in Art. 395(1) of Regulation (EU) No 375/2013 (2).

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the applicant’s right to be heard.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant incorrectly calculated the amount of absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) BWG.

(1) No SSM- 2021-ATBAW-7_ESA-2018-0000126.

(2) Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1-337).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 November 2021 — G.J. Riedel v EUIPO — Brew Dog (Punk)

(Case T-720/21)

(2022/C 11/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: G.J. Riedel GmbH (Kufstein, Germany) (represented by: D. Terheggen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brew Dog plc (Ellon, United Kingdom)

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 word mark Punk — International registration designating the European Union No 1 365 577

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2021 in Case R 291/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law