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

Action brought on 7 August 2022 — Multiópticas v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Representation of two black geometrical shapes)

(Case T-487/22)

(2022/C 368/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Multiópticas, S. Coop. (Colmenar Viejo, Spain) (represented by: M. López Camba and A. Lyubomirova Geleva, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nike Innovate CV (Beaverton, Oregon, United States)

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 (Representation of two black geometrical shapes) — Application for registration No 18 154 653

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2022 in Case R 1762/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;

— order Nike Innovate CV to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law
Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-466/22)

(2022/C 359/108)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart, and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic the order:

— for payment of all sums due to the applicant under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement nr. 80310 (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 25 August 2017, comprising: — EUR 363 150,97, being the amount due to the applicant as at 30 June 2022, which is all principal of EUR 301 679,16, interest of EUR 34 100,36 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 27 371,45 — further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made.

— for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due since 25 August 2017, and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement.
Action brought on 8 August 2022 — QN v eu-LISA

(Case T-484/22)

(2022/C 380/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QN (represented by: H. Tagaras, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the operational management of large-Scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the application;

— annul the contested acts;

— order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of 3 000 euros;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the European Union Agency for the operational management of large-Scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA) of 22 December 2021 to not include the applicant’s name on the list of staff members reclassified to Grade AD 10 in the 2021 reclassification exercise, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation and application of the defendant’s instrument governing reclassifications, namely decision 2016-016 of the Management Board, in so far as, according to the defendant, that decision subjects reclassification, at each grade, to a condition of average minimum seniority in the grade that the staff member to be reclassified must satisfy and which, in the applicant’s case, for AD 9, was four years. The applicant relies on the fact that he obtained a very high number of reclassification points and that his grade and AD 10 were the only AD grades to which that condition of seniority was applied.

2. Second plea in law, put forward in the alternative, claiming that the abovementioned decision is unlawful on the ground that it is incompatible with a number of principles and rules of law governing public service employment, in particular those regarding reclassification based on merit.
—

annul the implicit decision of the defendant dated 30 July 2021 refusing to correct the calculation of the reimbursement of his annual travel expenses for 2020 as regards his children and, in as far as necessary, the annulment of the decision of the defendant, dated 14 April 2022, rejecting his complaint filed on 28 October 2021, under Article 90(2) of the EU Staff Regulations; and,
Action brought on 18 August 2022 — CrossFit v EUIPO — Pitk Pelotas (CROSSWOD EQUIPMENT)

(Case T-506/22)

(2022/C 389/17)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CrossFit LLC (Boulder, Colorado, United States) (represented by: D. Mărginean, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pitk Pelotas, SL (Noain, Spain)

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 CROSSWOD EQUIPMENT — Application for registration No 18 064 486

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2022 in Case R 325/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partly annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision;

— order Pitk Pelotas, SL to pay the costs incurred by CrossFit, LLC in the present action, in the proceedings before the Board of Appeals and in the proceedings before the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as the First Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there is no likelihood of confusion with the earlier CROSSFIT trade marks;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as the First Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there is no likelihood of confusion with the earlier CROSS trade mark;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 August 2022 — UGA Nutraceuticals v EUIPO — BASF (OMEGOR VITALITY)

(Case T-496/22)

(2022/C 380/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: UGA Nutraceuticals Srl (Gubbio, Italy) (represented by: M. Riva, J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BASF AS (Oslo, Norway)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark OMEGOR VITALITY — Application for registration No 18 082 021

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 June 2022 in Case R 1200/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 September 2022 — mataharispaclub v EUIPO — Rouha (SpaClubMatahari)

(Case T-552/22)

(2022/C 408/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: mataharispaclub s.r.o. (Mníšek pod Brdy, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Diamant, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alena Rouha (Prague, Czech Republic)

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 ‘SpaClubMatahari’ — EU trade mark No 17 642 661

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2022 in Case R 937/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 September 2022 — Trus v EUIPO — Unilab (ARTRESAN)

(Case T-585/22)

(2022/C 418/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Mariusz Trus (Lublin, Poland) (represented by: W. Włodarczyk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unilab LP (Rockville, Maryland, 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: European Union word mark ARTRESAN — European Union trade mark No 4 304 937

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2022 in joined Cases R 1428/2020-1 and R 1481/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to the extent that the trade mark at issue was maintained for the goods in Class 5 ‘therapeutic creams for joints; food supplements for medical purposes’;

— declare the mark revoked also for the above mentioned goods in Class 5;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in grey with black horses)

(Case T-538/22)

(2022/C 418/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, R. Wessman and S. Ljungblad, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Schwäbisch Hall, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union pattern mark representing a checked pattern in grey with black horses — European Union trade mark No 18 180 228

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2022 in Case R 1730/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Cancellation Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the proprietor and the cancellation applicant] are similar’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the proprietor.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 September 2022 — RT France v Council

(Case T-605/22)

(2022/C 424/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RT France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: E. Piwnica, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Council of the European Union of 27 July 2022;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the entirety of the costs;

— with all the legal consequences which that entails.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its application for annulment of the decision of the Council of 27 July 2022 which maintains the applicant’s name in Annex IX to Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13) and in Annex XV to Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the freedom of expression and information.

2. Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the freedom to conduct a business.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant exceeded its powers or misused its powers, in breach of EU law, by adopting Article 2(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/973 (1) on the basis of the power conferred under the first sentence of Article 42(7) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1009. (2) According to the applicant, pursuant to the first sentence of Article 42(7) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1009, the defendant may adopt delegated acts only for the purposes of agronomic efficiency and safety. Instead, the defendant laid down the limit values for the parameters ‘total chromium’ and ‘vanadium’ in Article 2(3)(a) and (c) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/973 for the purposes of health and environmental protection. The laying down of the limit values for total chromium and vanadium is not covered by the legal basis in the first sentence of Article 42(7) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1009.
Action brought on 6 October 2022 — Van Oosterwijck v Commission

(Case T-622/22)

(2022/C 441/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Viviane Van Oosterwijck (Kontich, Belgium) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 7 July 2022 and to the extent necessary the decision of 15 December 2021, decisions by which the Commission refused to grant a survivor’s pension to the applicant;

— accordingly, recognise the applicant as being entitled to a survivor’s pension under Articles 19 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, based on a plea of illegality of Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) on account of the violation of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on the basis of the duration of her relationship with her spouse. The applicant claims, inter alia, that the distinction that must be established in the present case, namely the fact that the requirement relating to the minimum duration of the marriage, in the situations covered by the abovementioned Article 20 is much greater than that in the situations covered by Article 19 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, even though that all those situations are comparable, had to be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly inappropriate in the light of the objective pursued by the legislature.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misuse of power in relation to a failure to state reasons/inadequate reasoning and failure to conduct a proper preliminary investigation. — The contested decision refuses access in relation to the exception provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, but in the present case the reasoning is merely ostensible. — In breach of the law, access to the document requested was refused without explaining how it could specifically and effectively undermine the protection of court proceedings, nor is it proven that the risk of undermining is reasonably foreseeable and not merely hypothetical, it not being specified to which national legal proceedings the decision refers. — It is not explained why the sending of the document to Veritas compromises the principle of equality of arms within unspecified judicial proceedings of which Veritas is not even mentioned as a party. — The decision lacks adequate verification in respect of the existence of a ‘duly reasoned’ objection of the Member State which opposes the disclosure of the document and in respect of the real existence of the need for protection provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
—

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2022) 5829 final of 5 August 2022 relating to the recovery by 16 August 2022 of a principal sum of EUR 125 166,68 plus interest in the amount of EUR 24 592,68 or in total an amount of EUR 149 759,36 from CMB Colorex Master Batches.
1.

Regarding the first contested period, the applicant raises three pleas, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty and of Article 3.6 of Annex X to the Staff Rules, breach of the duty to state reasons and of the right to a sound administration and, breach of the duty of care.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 November 2022 — SkinIdent v EUIPO — Beiersdorf (NIVEA SKIN-IDENTICAL Q10)

(Case T-665/22)

(2022/C 472/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: SkinIdent AG (Freienbach, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beiersdorf AG (Hamburg, 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: Application for European Union word mark NIVEA SKIN-IDENTICAL Q10 — Application for registration No 18 041 739

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 August 2022 in Case R 1499/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of 1 July 2021 in Case B 3 091 527;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 23 September 2022 — RM v Parliament

(Case T-593/22)

(2022/C 463/81)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: RM (represented by: D. Aukštuolytė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 25 July 2022;

— cancel debit note No 7020001038 issued by the European Parliament on 27 July 2022;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs.

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 that the Parliament infringed the five-year period laid down in Article 98(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018, within which a debit note must be sent in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, in so far as, as from 17 June 2016, the Parliament was in a position to claim its debt from the applicant and had in its possession all the supporting accounting documents relating to that debt, but did not send a debit note to the applicant until 27 July 2022.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Parliament, without justification, unreasonably and unfairly delayed in initiating the recovery procedure by failing to observe the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable time, as laid down in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Because of this, the applicant’s rights of defence were infringed, since the late initiation of the procedure deprived the applicant of the opportunity to defend himself effectively against the allegations made by gathering the necessary evidence when it was still possible to do so.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Parliament committed an error of assessment, in that it failed to assess properly the evidence and explanations submitted by the applicant to substantiate the work of his local assistant, thereby imposing an excessively high standard of proof on the applicant.

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 November 2022 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Device of a sun with arabic characters)

(Case T-670/22)

(2023/C 7/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Calrose Rice EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: H. Raychev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ricegrowers Ltd (Leeton, New South Wales, Australia)

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 mark (Device of a sun with arabic characters) — European Union trade mark No 18 186 653

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2022 in Case R 272/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener in the present proceedings to bear their own costs and to pay the Applicant’s costs of these proceedings, as well as the costs of the appeal procedure before the Fifth Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— The Board erred in finding that the compared signs are visually similar to a high degree;

— the Board was wrong to focus its conclusions regarding the visual comparison of the signs exclusively on the Arabic language wording and the stylised sun devices contained in the conflicting marks;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error in fact: and has failed to appreciate the functioning of the national state aid measure. The Commission did not properly understand the functioning of the measure in the Real Decreto-Ley 10/2022. (1) In the Commission’s analysis in the contested Decision, it is not clear that the Commission is aware that the exemption for hedged electricity supplies does not cover all of the possible hedges, since in some paragraphs it refers to it applying to wholesale market participants while in other it is considered to affect any hedge. This results in the Commission not taking into account the position of the applicants and, wrongly, concluding that the state aid scheme complies with EU law.