ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/26

Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (Burlington)

(Case T-122/16)

(2016/C 175/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Norris, (Barrister

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Burlington Fashion GmbH (Schmallenberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘Burlington’ — International registration designating the European Union No 982 021

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 in Case R 2409/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject the contested mark in respect of all of the contested goods;

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

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/30

Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Reisswolf v EUIPO (secret. service.)

(Case T-163/16)

(2016/C 200/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Reisswolf Akten- und Datenvernichtung GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘secret. service.’ — Application No 14 108 757

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 in Case R 1820/2015-4

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 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging that the CST erred in law, in so far as the conditions as laid down in the Staff Regulations to carry out the intermediate update at issue, provided for in Annex XI of the Staff Regulations, had not been met and that the Commission, by carrying out that update, had misused its powers. After finding, in the judgment under appeal, that the previous correction coefficient had been incorrectly calculated in Council Regulation (EU) No 1416/2013 of 17 December 2013 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2013 the correction coefficients applied to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union, the CST erred in law by holding that the principle of equal treatment authorised the appointing authority to carry out the intermediate update at issue, contrary to the doctrine of withdrawal of illegal administrative acts that give rise to a right or similar benefits.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DRAMA)

(Case T-183/16)

(2016/C 222/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guinot SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASTER DRAMA’ — Application for registration No 11 566 544

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2500/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni v Commission

(Case T-172/16)

(2016/C 211/76)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni SRL (Catania, Italy) (represented by: E. Castorina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/195 of 14 August 2015, C(2015) 5549 final, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 18 February 2016, in so far as it provides (Article 4(5)) that ‘Italy shall cancel all outstanding payments of aid under all schemes referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision’ and, in any case, in so far as it may prevent the applicant company obtaining the recovery of sums paid to the Agenzia delle Entrate dello Stato italiano in excess of the flat-rate of 10 % for its tax position (years 1990-1992), in accordance with Article 9(17) of Law No 289/2002; law which the courts rely upon in the Italian legal system.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

— In this regard, it claims that, when the European Commission states, as it does in the contested decision, that it is objectively impossible to recover (from the other companies that had to pay no more than 10 % of the sums owed) the state aid held to be illegal, it is a fact in law that — according to the principles set out above — the applicant’s right to recover the sums paid in excess of the provisions of Law No 289/2002 may not be denied: otherwise, there would be an intolerable, very serious difference in treatment between the applicant and the businesses of the province of Catania, now relieved by the contested decision from any payment up to 90 % of the amount of the unpaid tax.

Therefore, precisely as a result of the contested decision of the European Commission, an unfair competitive advantage has arisen for all the other companies, but to the detriment of the applicant, in respect of the damage sustained as a result of the natural disaster which occurred over 10 years before the decision of 14 August 2015. Under Italian law, businesses are not required to maintain administrative and accounting records for more than 10 years. Therefore, the Centro Morgagni is no longer in a position to provide evidence of having suffered damage for the purposes of Article 107 TFEU, with obvious infringement of the principles of equality, right of defence, protection of legitimate expectations (Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 2, 6, 9, 21 TEU) and distortion of competition in the conditions for equal treatment of operators.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/31

Action brought on 3 May 2014 — SATA v EUIPO (4600)

(Case T-214/16)

(2016/C 232/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SATA GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Simon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU trade mark ‘4600’ — Application No 13 965 595

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 in Case R 1942/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the rejection of EU trade mark No 13965595;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the obligation to state reasons under Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/43

Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Haverkamp v EUIPO — Sissel (Foot mat)

(Case T-227/16)

(2016/C 243/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Reinhard Haverkamp (Kindberg, Austria) (represented by: A. Waldenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sissel GmbH (Bad Dürkheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the design ‘Foot mat’ — International registration designating the European Union No DM/072187-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2016 in Case R 2618/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings, the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the invalidity proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/33

Action brought on 4 January 2016 — Gregis v EUIPO — DM9 Automobili (ATS)

(Case T-5/16)

(2016/C 243/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Gian Luca Gregis (Adeje, Spain) (represented by: M. Bartolucci, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DM9 Automobili Srl (Borgomanero, 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: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘ATS’ — Community trade mark No 9 799 719

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings relating to the registration of a transfer

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 October 2015 in Case R 588/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— cancel Transfer T8391925 of 14 April 2014.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 17 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Rule 31 of Regulation No 2868/95;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/40

Action brought on 13 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — WE Brand (EW)

(Case T-241/16)

(2016/C 251/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WE Brand Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘EW’ — Application for registration No 12 326 468

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2016 in Case R 426/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging a failure to observe the criteria set out in Article 1 of Decision 2014/119/CFSP, reiterated in recital 4 of Regulation (EU) No 208/2014, in recital 3 of Decision 2015/364/CFSP, reiterated in recital 2 of Regulation (EU) 2015/357, in recital 4 of Decision 2015/876/CFSP, reiterated in recital 3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/357, and in recital 4 of Decision 2016/318/CFSP, reiterated in recital 2 of Regulation (EU) 2015/357.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/47

Action brought on 11 May 2016 — Hansen Medical v EUIPO — Covidien (MAGELLAN)

(Case T-222/16)

(2016/C 270/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hansen Medical, Inc. (Mountain View, California, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, Solicitor, G. Würtenberger, T. Wittmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Covidien AG (Neuhausen am Rheinfall, Switzerland)

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 ‘MAGELLAN’ – EU trade mark No 5 437 711

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2016 in Joined Cases R 3092/2014-2 and R 3118/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment and appraisal of the facts when it selected an unrepresentative sample of EU producers for the purpose of assessing the injury and in doing so also infringed Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) and 17(1) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community by incorrectly assuming that the criterion of the largest EU sales volumes equates to the sample being sufficiently representative.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/38

Action brought on 8 June 2016 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MOUNT)

(Case T-294/16)

(2016/C 279/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kaane American International Tobacco Co. Ltd. (Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, I. Valdelomar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Tobacco FZCO (Dubai, United Arab Emirates)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘GOLD MOUNT’ — EU trade mark No 7 157 233

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 in Case R 1857/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— accept the present appeal;

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the registration of the EUTM No. 7.157.233 ‘GOLD MOUNT’ (figurative) valid for all the products covered;

— condemn EUIPO (The Boards of Appeal) or subsidiary the other party in the proceedings to bear the costs and fees of the present proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/51

Action brought on 13 May 2016 — Trasta Komercbanka and others v ECB

(Case T-247/16)

(2016/C 270/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Trasta Komercbanka AS (Riga, Latvia) and 6 others (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the ECB's decision dated 3 March 2016 withdrawing the banking license of Trasta Komercbanka AS; and

— order the defendant to pay all costs.

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 ECB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all factual aspects including without limitation that the ECB did not respond appropriately to the fact that the information and documents submitted by the local Latvian regulatory authority were inaccurate.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality by failing to recognise the availability of alternative measures.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Art. 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation (1) and committed a détournement de pouvoir.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated procedural rules including the right to be heard, the right of access to the file, the right to an adequately reasoned decision, Art. 83(1) SSM Framework Regulation (2) and the right to a fair administrative procedure.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013, L 287, p. 63)

(2) Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (ECB/2014/17) (OJ 2014, L 141, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/31

Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-444S)

(Case T-318/16)

(2016/C 287/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SDC-444S’– Application for registration No 12 780 061

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 1573/2015-2

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 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 22a of Directive 2001/83/EC, of the principle of proportionality and of the right to be heard

The applicant submits that there is infringement of Article 22a of Directive 2001/83/EC and of the principle of proportionality because the German authorisations authority did not make use of the possibility of ordering an efficacy study to be conducted (failure to exercise a discretion). It maintains that that is also shown by the express refusal of the German authorisations authority to organise a hearing in the form of a discussion on that subject with the ombudsman, as requested by the applicant.
—

in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/31

Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Hello Media v EUIPO — Hola (#hello digitalmente diferentes)

(Case T-330/16)

(2016/C 296/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hello Media, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hola, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘#hello digitalmente diferentes’ — Application for registration No 12 440 574

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21/04/2016 in Case R 1979/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject opposition B 2 336 348 to the application for a European Union trade mark No 12 440 574;

— order the grant of European Union trade mark No 12 440 574 ‘#hello digitalmente diferentes’ (with graphic);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/44

Action brought on 21 June 2016 — VF Europe v Commission

(Case T-324/16)

(2016/C 305/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VF Europe BVBA (Bornem, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

— in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

— in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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 Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.

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