ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/59

Action brought on 3 February 2017 — Schmid v EUIPO — Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Steirisches Kürbiskernöl)

(Case T-72/17)

(2017/C 104/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Gabriele Schmid (Halbenrain, Austria) (represented by: B. Kuchar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Graz, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘Steirisches Kürbiskernöl’ — International registration No 900 100

Proceedings before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2016 in Case R 1768/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the contested decision and declare the mark IR No 900 100 to be revoked for the EU for all goods; in the alternative

— annul the contested decision on account of the failure to provide evidence of use of IR No 900 100 as a trade mark and refer the proceedings back to EUIPO;

— in any event, order the proprietor of the mark to pay the applicant’s costs incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO and in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
First plea in law, alleging misapplication of the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Decision ECB/2004/3 (1)

The applicants claim that the ECB has failed to show in sufficient detail that disclosure of the documents concerned would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State.

The risk of detriment to the public interest claimed by the ECB is, they submit, more than six years after the documents were drafted and after a fundamental change in the surrounding circumstances, no longer a matter giving rise to actual concern.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/37

Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Heineken Romania v EUIPO — Lénárd (Csíki Sör)

(Case T-83/17)

(2017/C 121/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Heineken Romania SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: A.-M. Baciu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: András Lénárd (Sincraieni, Romania)

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: EU word mark ‘Csíki Sör’ — Application for registration No 12 105 839

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2016 in Case R 1310/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of July 1st, 2015 in Opposition B 002 279 514;

— upheld the opposition B 002 279 514;

— reject the European Union trade mark application No 012 105 839‘Csíki Sör’ in its entirety.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Appeal of the defendant and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant had no legitimate interest in the outcome of the appeal proceedings.
—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 30 June 2016 rejecting a medical certificate; together with, and so far as necessary annul the decision of the appointing authority of 13 January 2017, rejecting the applicant’s complaint; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/58

Action brought on 21 March 2017 — W&O medical esthetics v EUIPO — Fidia farmaceutici (HYALSTYLE)

(Case T-178/17)

(2017/C 144/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: W&O medical esthetics GmbH (Oberursel, Germany) (represented by: A. Finkentey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘HYALSTYLE’ — EU trade mark No 11 645 471

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2017 in Case R 872/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/29

Action brought on 28 February 2017 — Prim v EUIPO — Primed Halberstadt Medizintechnik (PRIMED)

(Case T-138/17)

(2017/C 129/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Prim, SA (Móstoles, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Primed Halberstadt Medizintechnik GmbH (Halberstadt, 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: EU word mark ‘PRIMED’ No 5 154 182

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2016 in Joined Cases R 2494/2015-4 and R 163/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging defects affecting the procedural legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into five parts. — First part, alleging that the power to make financial decisions concerning Members rests with the Bureau of the European Parliament and not with the Secretary-General. — Second part, alleging that the Bureau of the European Parliament cannot alter the nature and scope of its powers. The Secretary-General has not provided evidence of any lawful delegation by the President of the Bureau of the Parliament of the power to adopt and notify the contested measures in order to settle financial issues concerning a Member. — Third part, alleging that the contested measures do not contain a sufficient statement of reasons, and that they are of an arbitrary nature. — Fourth part, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements. — Fifth part, alleging that the Secretary-General of the European Parliament did not personally examine the case-file.
1.

By this action, the Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) challenges the requests made by the Commission by means of its debit note 3241615335/29.11.2016, in relation to participation in the ACTIBIO project. By means of that debit note, the Commission requested that ΕΚΕΤΑ reimburse part of the payment received by it for the ACTIBIO project, a sum of EUR 38 241,00. The request follows an on-the-spot audit which was carried out by the European Commission at the applicant’s premises.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/31

Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (hp)

(Case T-207/17)

(2017/C 168/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Senetic S.A. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HP Hewlett Packard Group LLC (Houston, Texas, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the letters ‘hp’ — EU trade mark No 8 579 021

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2017 in Case R 1001/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings before the Court, as well as the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/35

Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Mega Liner)

(Case T-187/17)

(2017/C 161/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bernard Krone Holding SE & Co. KG (Spelle, Germany) (represented by: T. Weeg and K. Lüken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Mega Liner’ — Application No 14 473 094

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 442/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as that decision dismisses the appeal;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 110 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1), of the rules laid down in the specifications for the award of the contract, in particular points 4.1 and 12.1 of the instructions to tenderers, and of the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and of non-discrimination. This plea is divided into three parts: — first part, alleging a failure to mobilise technical and operational resources in accordance with the terms of the contract; — second part, alleging a failure to mobilise human resources in accordance with the terms of the contract; — third part, alleging that the mobilisation plan was artificial and criticising the taking into account of the prior experience of tenderers in hostile environments.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision of 19 January 2017 is not consistent with the application of the relevant provisions and guidelines and regulatory practice in other cases and thus constitutes a violation of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and results in a distortion of the level playing field.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, insofar as the contested decision, according to which it is impossible for the defendant to execute an agreement made as part of an amicable settlement in Case F-33/15, Labiri v EESC, constitutes a failure to execute a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Such an unlawful failure to execute the agreement thus reached constitutes, moreover, an infringement of the duty of care to the applicant, the duty to cooperate in good faith provided for in Article 4(3) TEU, the [principle] of performance in good faith of agreements freely entered into between parties and the principle of sound administration and the duty of assistance flowing from Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.
1.

First plea in law, alleging by its letter of July 2004 to the relevant industry associations the defendant has already decided that the Czech Republic’s RE promotion scheme does not constitute State aid, and Defendant is, as a matter of law, bound to this decision, which it has not revoked and is not allowed to revoke.
1.

First plea in law, alleging the illegality of the European Commission Decision of 9 February 2017 ordering the applicants to undergo an inspection pursuant to Article 20(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), a decision which is contested in the present case (‘the contested decision’). The applicants claim in this regard that: — the contested decision is based on a provision which is itself illegal and therefore inapplicable in the present case, in accordance with Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’); — Article 20 of Regulation No 1/2003 infringes the fundamental right to an effective remedy laid down in Article 47 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), in that it does not allow undertakings to which a Commission inspection decision is addressed to bring effective proceedings to challenge the manner in which the inspection is carried out; — that provision also infringes the principle of equality of arms and the rights of defence laid down in Article 47 and 48 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR, in that it does not allow the parties to obtain access to the documents underlying the Commission’s decision to carry out an inspection.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/31

Action brought on 6 April 2017 — Amplexor Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-211/17)

(2017/C 213/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Amplexor Luxembourg Sàrl (Bertrange, Luxemburg) (represented by J.-F. Steichen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— accept the present application as formally correct;

— annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 13 February 2017 as to its substance;

— accordingly, cancel the call for tenders No 10651;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs;

— reserve for the applicant all other rights, pleas and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action seeks the annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 13 February 2017 in so far as it places the applicant in second position in the call for tenders No AO 10651 — Processing of notices for publication in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ S) (OJ 2016/S 143-258115).

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

1. The first plea in law alleges infringement of the rules and principles of EU law in so far as the Publications Office, by offering to tenderers which were not its contracting partners at the time of the submission the chance to benefit from greater funding in order to finance take-over costs, manifestly infringed the principle of equality. According to the applicant, such an approach, besides being gravely discriminatory, seriously undermines both the raison d’être and the foundations of public procurement procedures.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/49

Action brought on 19 May 2017 — Stips v Commission

(Case T-311/17)

(2017/C 231/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Adolf Stips (Besozzo, Italy) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare and rule,

— principally, that the decision of the AECE of 19 August 2016 not to reclassify the applicant in grade AD 13 in the 2013 reclassification procedure is annulled;

— in the alternative, that the Commission is ordered to make good in full the harm, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, suffered by the applicant;

— in any event, that the Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in that the Commission ignored the grounds for the judgment of 19 July 2016, Stips v Commission (F-131/15, EU:F:2016:154) and executed that judgment in bad faith, thus undermining the force of res judicata given absolute effect by the Civil Service Tribunal.
—

Annul the notice of assessment of the applicant’s entitlement to a retirement pension, determined by Decision No 360/03 A of 15 December 2003, insofar as it ruled out or failed to provide for reimbursement of periodic annuity payments corresponding to his retirement pension which are paid by the Office national des pensions (National Pensions Office; ‘ONP’) of the Kingdom of Belgium to the bank account of the EESC as from 1 January 2004 as a result of the transfer of his pension rights;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of paragraphs 4 and 6 of the SOP on Reconfiguration, outlining, respectively, the principles and the role and responsibilities of the Head, HRO, and of paragraphs 5 (Principles) and 7 (Selections), in particular of paragraphs 7.1 (a) and (b), 7.2 (c),(f) and (k) and 7.3 (c) of SOP on Staff Selection (infringements of a contractual nature).
—

order the defendant to award the applicant an amount of EUR 10 000, or any other amount which the Court will deem appropriate, as compensation for the non-material harm suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/60

Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial v EUIPO — Seven (sevenoak)

(Case T-339/17)

(2017/C 239/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial Ltd (Shenzhen, China) (represented by: M. de Arpe Tejero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘SEVENOAK’ — Application for registration No 13 521 125

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2017 in Case R 1326/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— reject the contested decision;

— grant the EUTM application No 13 521 125 ‘SEVENOAK’ for all the goods included in the application;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/43

Action brought on 6 June 2017 — NCL v EUIPO (FEEL FREE)

(Case T-362/17)

(2017/C 249/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: NCL Corporation Ltd (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FEEL FREE’ — Application for registration No 15 090 533

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2017 in Case R 2094/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law relied on
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/41

Action brought on 7 June 2017 — Aldo Supermarkets v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (ALDI)

(Case T-359/17)

(2017/C 249/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Aldo Supermarkets (Varna, Bulgaria) (represented by: C. Saettel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ALDI’ – Application for registration No 12 749 586

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 in Case R 976/2016-4

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 Rule 19 of Regulation No 2868/95;

— Existence of contradictory grounds in that the Board of Appeal accepted, in paragraph 18 of the contested decision, that the opposition form contained a colour representation of the earlier mark, and, in paragraph 24 of the contested decision, that the applicant had produced a PDF file showing the colour representation of the mark, although those comments are incompatible with the finding in paragraphs 22 to 25 of the contested decision that, essentially, the applicant had failed to demonstrate the existence of its earlier mark by not providing a colour representation thereof;

— Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principle of audi alteram partem, in that the Board of Appeal noted of its own motion the infringement of Rule 19 of the Implementing Regulation, without hearing the parties on that plea, although the principle of audi alteram partem requires the Boards of Appeal to hear the parties on any plea which they intend to raise of their own motion;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/34

Action brought on 27 June 2017 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — C & C IP (T)

(Case T-401/17)

(2017/C 269/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: H. Prange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C & C IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘T’ — Application for registration No 11 623 022

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 April 2017 in Case R 502/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision and amend it to the effect that the opposition is rejected in its entirety;

— order the defendant and, as the case may be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
—

The defendant had information at hand regarding the competition in the Vilnius heat market, but apparently misjudged it when concluding that there would be no impact. In particular, the threat of crowding out of existing market players as the Plaintiff was not looked at sufficiently and the conclusions of the Defendant are thus wrong. The stated aid will drive out independent heat producers that operate CO2-neutral biomass heat plants. Furthermore, the State aid enables Vilnius KJ to instantly become a dominant market player with a market share of around 51 %.