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

Action brought on 27 January 2021 — Cepewa v EUIPO — Out of the blue (LIEBLINGSMENSCH)

(Case T-47/21)

(2021/C 88/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cepewa GmbH (Karben, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany)

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 LIEBLINGSMENSCH — EU trade mark No 16 566 531

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2020 in Case R 918/2020-2

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 59(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (d) of Regulation No (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of the first sentence 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 19 February 2021 — Amisi Kumba v Council

(Case T-107/21)

(2021/C 128/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gabriel Amisi Kumba (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in the annex to that regulation;

— 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-103/21, Boshab v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 February 2021 — Distintiva Solutions v EUIPO — Makeblock (Makeblock)

(Case T-86/21)

(2021/C 110/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Distintiva Solutions S. Coop. Pequeña (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: M. J. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Makeblock Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

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 Makeblock — European Union trade mark No 12 249 488

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2020 in Case R 988/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— 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;
1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the applicable general implementing provisions. As regards the 2018 evaluation report, the applicant alleges an unlawful review of the satisfactory nature of the services at the appeal stage. As regards the 2019 evaluation report, the applicant complains that the appeal assessor intervened at an early stage. Finally, as regards the two reports, the applicant alleges the erroneous interpretation and application of Article 2(3)(a) of the general implementing provisions and of Article 4 of those provisions to her situation.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 January 2021 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO COUTURE)

(Case T-30/21)

(2021/C 128/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Clichy, France) (represented by: M. Treis and E. Strobel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal)

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 SO COUTURE — Application for registration No 12 194 015

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 November 2020 in Case R 158/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and any intervener to pay the costs of this appeal.

Plea in law
Action brought on 5 March 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission

(Case T-136/21)

(2021/C 148/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Heidi Amort (Jenesien, Italy) and 37 other applicants (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should annul the contested implementing decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against European Commission Implementing Decision C(2021) 94 (final) of 6 January 2021 granting a conditional marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified)’, a medicinal product for human use, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested implementing decision infringes Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006. (1) It has been scientifically proven that the worldwide panic on account of the high mortality rate supposedly connected with the SARS-CoV-2 infection is unfounded. Furthermore, the WHO and the EU have not duly recognised the crisis situation as a public health threat.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested implementing decision infringes Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 due to: — the absence of a positive risk-benefit balance, as defined in Article 1(28a) of Directive 2001/83/EC; (2) — the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, since the applicant is not likely to be in a position to provide the comprehensive clinical data; — the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, since there are no unmet medical needs that will be fulfilled by the authorised medicinal product; — the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, (3) Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. (4)

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging serious infringement of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and Articles 3, 35 and 38 of the EU Charter.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 of 29 March 2006 on the conditional marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2006 L 92, p. 6).

(2) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products and amending Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 121).

(4) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-111/21)

(2021/C 138/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 30 November 2020 on State aid SA.55373 (2020/N) — Croatia — COVID-19: Damage compensation to Croatia Airlines (1); and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalization of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services and free establishment (2)).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.

(1) OJ 2021 C 17, p. 3.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).
Action brought on 1 March 2021 — QK v ECB

(Case T-133/21)

(2021/C 182/80)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicant: QK (represented by: A. Bērziņš, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— find the application admissible and examine the substance of the case;

— order the ECB to pay the applicant EUR 15 583 195 in compensation for the losses sustained;

— order the ECB to pay all the applicant’s costs;

— require the ECB to pay all the costs arising from the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Relying on Article 268 TFEU and the third paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, the applicant has raised a single plea in law. In that plea the applicant submits that, by adopting on 3 March 2016 the allegedly unfounded decision to withdraw the operating licence of Trasta Komercbanka AS, (1) a bank partly owned by the applicant, the ECB was responsible for the loss in the value of the applicant’s shares in that bank.

(1) European Central Bank (ECB) Decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 529900WIP0INFDAWTJ81/1 WOANCA-2016-0005 of 3 March 2016 on the withdrawal of the licence (authorisation) of Trasta Komercbanka, replaced by Decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 529900WIPOINFDAWTJ81/2 of 11 July 2016, which is the subject of an application for annulment lodged with the General Court in Case T-698/16, Trasta Komercbanka and Others v ECB, in which proceedings are pending (OJ 2016 C 441, p. 29; corrigendum in OJ 2017 C 6, p. 57).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 March 2021 — Telefónica Germany v EUIPO (LOOP)

(Case T-132/21)

(2021/C 148/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark LOOP — Application for registration No 18 008 477

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 December 2020 in Case R 644/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it rejected the EU trade mark registration application No 18008477;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and the costs incurred during the appeal and examination procedures before EUIPO.

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 31 March 2021 — CCTY Bearing Company v EUIPO — CCVI International (CCTY)

(Case T-176/21)

(2021/C 206/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CCTY Bearing Company (Zhenjiang, China) (represented by: L. Genz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CCVI International Srl (Vicenza, Italy)

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 CCTY — European Union trade mark No 11 550 886

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2021 in Case R 779/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings and the cancellation proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment (‘AACC’) erred in the application of the criteria for assessing the candidate for renewal and, more specifically, in the interpretation of the concept of ‘foreseeable future needs’ which, at the time the decision was adopted, had never been agreed upon or even established.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 April 2021 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Anferlux-Electrodomésticos (SmartThinQ)

(Case T-181/21)

(2021/C 217/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anferlux-Electrodomésticos, Lda (Vila Nova de Monsarros, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative SmartThinQ mark — European Union trade mark No 14 983 861

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2021 in Case R 1657/2020-4

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 the principle of neutrality, in particular of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the principle of equality of arms by disregarding Articles 16(2) in conjunction with Articles 2(2)(g) and 12(2)(c) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 which are based on Article 146(7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and linked to Article 25(2)(a) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/626;

— Infringement of Article 17(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 64(2)(3) in conjunction with Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously finding that the earlier trademark has been genuinely used for some goods;
1.

First plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest error of assessment resulting in the misapplication of the protection of the decision-making process exemption (first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001) (1) and failure to state reasons, because the disclosure would not seriously undermine the decision-making process. — It is argued that the contested decision does not take into account the new constitutional dimension which emanated with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, in particular Article 15(2) TFEU, and which created a new legal regime for public access to documents, in particular for legislative documents. — Furthermore, the applicant argues that the contested decision failed to apply and meet the correct test under Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 and incorrectly relied on an argument that disclosure of the requested documents would put into question the final choices made by the Member States and would create unnecessary uncertainty on their intentions. — The applicant also maintains that the contested decision incorrectly relied on an argument that disclosure of the requested documents would hamper the delegations in their ability to find a balance between the various interests in the legislative procedure at issue and incorrectly relied on an argument that refusing to disclose a limited number does not amount to denying citizens the possibility to obtain information about the legislative decision-making.
—

Order the annulment of the Council decision (EU) 2020/2252 of 29 December 2020 (1) on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and on provisional application of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, and of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information (2), to the extent that the decision provisionally applies Title VII of part Three of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement to Ireland;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Laboratories Ern v EUIPO — Beta Sports (META)

(Case T-192/21)

(2021/C 217/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beta Sports LLC (Coconut Creek, Florida, United States)

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 the EU word mark META — Application for registration No 17 973 308

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2021 in Case R 1152/2020-2

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the application for European Union trade mark No 17 973 308 META in Class 5;

— order the defendant, or if applicable, the intervener, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 30 April 2021 — Dana Astra v Council

(Case T-239/21)

(2021/C 242/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dana Astra IOOO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Lester, G. Forwood, and M. Vangenechten, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/353 of 25 February 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/339 of 25 February 2021 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) 765/2006 insofar as they apply to the Applicant; and

— Order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging errors of assessment and failure to give reasons in finding that Dana Holdings/Dana Astra is benefiting from or supporting the Lukashenka regime.
2.

Second plea in law, regarding Survey AA/2017/013, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549), as well as Article 12(2) and (6) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, securities and use of euro (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 18), with regard to the application of a flat rate despite the actual risk to the EU budget being calculable.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 May 2021 — Fidelity National Information Services v EUIPO — IFIS (FIS)

(Case T-237/21)

(2021/C 252/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (Jacksonville, Florida, United States) (represented by: P. Wilhelm, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Banca IFIS SpA (Mestre, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark FIS — Application for registration No 13 232 236

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2021 in Case R 1460/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision;

— order the EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 May 2021 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background IV)

(Case T-279/21)

(2021/C 278/82)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background IV) — Application for registration No 18 206 087

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 in Case R 1898/2020-5

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 those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law