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

Action brought on 17 March 2022 — CEDC International v EUIPO — Underberg (Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle)

(Case T-145/22)

(2022/C 198/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Fijałkowski, radca prawny)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Underberg AG (Dietlikon, Switzerland)

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 tridimensional mark (Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle) — Application for registration No 33 266

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 December 2021 in Case R 1954/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in part in respect of the grounds of opposition under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— order EUIPO and the other party before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in connection with Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 March 2022 — Sport1 v EUIPO — SFR (SFR SPORT1)

(Case T-141/22)

(2022/C 191/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sport1 GmbH (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: J. Krekel and C. Otto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société française du radiotelephone — SFR (Paris, France)

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 SFR SPORT1 in red, white and black — Application for registration No 16 161 317

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2021 in Case R 2329/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and assessment and a failure to provide sufficient reasoning regarding the Commission’s conclusion that the contested transaction would have created a dominant position resulting in a substantial impediment to effective competition in the internal market because of (a) the reliance on market shares as ‘prima facie’ evidence of the creation of a dominant position despite persistently low margins, structural overcapacity and infrequent tenders, (b) the failure to recognize the competitive constraints exercised by competitors and a flawed pivotality assessment, (c) the dismissal of the customers’ obvious buyer power in a market characterized by overcapacity and infrequent, high value tenders, (d) the failure to establish how the contested transaction would lead to a significant impediment to effective competition in the internal market, and (e) the incorrect assessment of the range of possible outcomes that would have prevailed absent the contested transaction.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of Articles 2 and 3 of the New York Convention on the Rights of the Child and infringement of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement in the form of disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to conduct a business. In adopting the Contested Acts, the Council infringed the applicant’s fundamental right to conduct a business in that: — the Contested Acts significantly restrict the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business; — the Contested Acts impair the essence of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union; — the Council’s failure to comply with its legal obligations (including its obligation to give reasons and disclose the evidence on which the Contested Acts were based) makes it impossible for the Court to assess and determine whether the relevant restrictive measures are (a) necessary and genuinely meet the pursued objectives of general interest; and (b) proportionate to the objective pursued; — in any event the restrictive measures in question are not necessary and do not genuinely meet the pursued objective as the applicant’s activities and the projects co-financed by the applicant do not contribute to the ‘military aggression against Ukraine’ or finance, enable or assist the actions of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine.
3.

Third plea in law, in the alternative, first, claiming that the provisions at issue should be applied in accordance with the flexibility promised by the European Union regarding the interpretation of the Staff Regulations in a way that is generous to United Kingdom nationals and consistent with other internal rules and, second, alleging that the principle of compensation for the staff member’s expatriation status was infringed.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 May 2022 — Groschopp v EUIPO (Sustainability through Quality)

(Case T-253/22)

(2022/C 237/99)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Groschopp AG Drives & More (Viersen, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Sustainability through Quality’ — Application for registration No 18 158 368

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2022 in Case R 1076/2020-5

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

under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs. Ms Ghada Mhana requests that the Council be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by her, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU have been breached, in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified, unnecessary and disproportionate restriction on those rights, because: (i) there is no suggestion that any funds allegedly misappropriated by the applicant are considered to have been transferred outside Ukraine; (ii) Ukrainian domestic measures would plainly be adequate and sufficient; and (iii) restrictive measures have now been in place for eight years and have been imposed on the basis of a pre-trial investigation which is, in obvious, reality deceased and/or at the very least in total stagnation and on which the Council has not sought to rely in either of the two preceding years.
Action brought on 6 May 2022 — Indetec v Commission and Others

(Case T-250/22)

(2022/C 244/60)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ingeniería para el Desarrollo Tecnológico, SL (Indetec) (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: J. Navas Marqués, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission, European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA), European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the decision of 10 March 2022, reference number Ares (2022) 1775149, of the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA) (now EASME), which is an executive agency of the European Commission;

— declare that, on the basis of Article 272 TFEU, the applicant correctly applied Article II.9.1 of the General Conditions of the LIFE Programme (1) Grant Agreement, signed on 10 June 2016 between EASME and, inter alia, the applicant, who was duly represented for the purposes of that signature by the coordinating beneficiary INNOTECNO;

— order the European Commission, through its agency EASME, to pay the applicant, the total amount of EUR 335 900,00 required to fulfill its contractual obligations under the LIFE Programme Grant Agreement signed on 10 June 2016 between EASME and, inter alia, the applicant, who was duly represented for the purposes of that signature by the coordinating beneficiary INNOTECNO;

— expressly order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, more specifically Article 298 thereof, and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the right to good administration.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 202(4) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 2018/1046. (2)

3. Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of defence.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article II.9.1 of the General Conditions of the Grant Agreement.

(1) European Union Programme for the Environment and Climate Action.

(2) 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).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment by the Council in including the applicant’s name in the annexes to the Contested Acts. — The Council’s reasons for listing the applicant are materially flawed. — The Council fails to identify the individual, specific and concrete reasons why restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant, and the reasons relied on are not sufficiently detailed, contrary to the Council’s obligations. — The evidence provided is insufficient to support the listing of the applicant by way of the Contested Acts.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 May 2022 — BB Services v EUIPO — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure)

(Case T-298/22)

(2022/C 257/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: BB Services GmbH (Flörsheim am Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark)

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 three-dimensional mark (Shape of a toy figure) — EU trade mark No 50 518

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2022 in Case R 1354/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and declare EU trade mark No 50 518 invalid;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence on the part of the Commission and infringement of Articles 101 and 102 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) read in conjunction with Article 98 thereof, as a result of the application of the procedure for recovering the amounts receivable by offsetting, despite the fact that those amounts had ceased to exist. The applicant submits that the Commission had no legal basis on which to adopt the contested decision given that, as a result of the settlement agreement concluded between the Polish and Czech Governments, the waiver by both parties of any claims, and the removal of Case C-121/21 (2) from the register of the Court of Justice, the effects of the order of 20 September 2021 had retroactively ceased to exist.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 May 2022 — International Foodstuffs v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (TIFFANY CRUNCH N CREAM)

(Case T-321/22)

(2022/C 276/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: International Foodstuffs Co. LLC (Sharjah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J. Blum, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

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 TIFFANY CRUNCH N CREAM — Application for registration No 18 002 077

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2022 in Case R 2136/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 May 2022 — Fun Factory v EUIPO — I Love You (love you so much)

(Case T-306/22)

(2022/C 284/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Fun Factory GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: K.-D. Franzen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: I Love You, Inc. (Lewes, Delaware, United States)

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 love you so much — Application for registration No 18 157 726

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2022 in Case R 1464/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and grant the applicant’s appeal;

— order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs incurred.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 June 2022 — Chocolates Lacasa Internacional v EUIPO — Esquitino Madrid (Conguitos)

(Case T-339/22)

(2022/C 284/76)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Chocolates Lacasa Internacional, SA (Utebo, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and J. Vicente Martínez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mariano Esquitino Madrid (Elche, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark Conguitos — EU trade mark No 10 546 836

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2022 in Case R 601/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul and declare inapplicable the contested decision, upholding in full the application for a declaration of invalidity of EU trade mark No 10 546 836 Conguitos (figurative), Classes 3, 14 and 18;

— order the defendant and EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Infringement of Article 53(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions list is based on factually incorrect grounds. — The actions of the applicant within [confidential] (1) do not call for the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions list. Not one of the reasons set out in Article 2 of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022, is applicable to the applicant. — The applicant is not a shareholder of [confidential]. The applicant was only indirectly, via the company GlobalVoyenTreyding Ltd, a passive shareholder of [confidential]. The applicant transferred those shares to the management by agreements of 11 January 2022, and therefore prior to the military operation of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine. — The applicant has no links with ‘the security forces’ of the Russian Federation via [confidential]. The applicant has no active or executive role within that foundation, which is a charity, nor is he aware of whether or not the trustees of that foundation are former officials of the Russian security services, which the Council does not demonstrate.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 June 2022 — Rauch Furnace Technology v EUIPO (Musto et Bureau (melting crucible)

(Case T-347/22)

(2022/C 294/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH (Gmunden, Austria) (represented by: M. Traxler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Musto et Bureau Srl (Osteria Grande, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 7 737 143-0001 (melting crucible)

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2022 in Case R 1697/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision together with the declaration of invalidity of Community design No 7 737 143-0001;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of essential procedural requirements;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Diesel v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (Joggjeans)

(Case T-378/22)

(2022/C 311/20)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, 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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Joggjeans — International registration designating the European Union No 1 180 919

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2022 in Case R 1073/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold in its entirety the application filed by Diesel SpA and annul the contested decision;

— order the intervener to pay the costs including all the costs of the earlier stages of these proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 July 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (TRiM)

(Case T-428/22)

(2022/C 326/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Pasadena, California, 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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark TRiM — International registration designating the European Union No 1 411 062

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 April 2022 in Case R 1158/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— revoke the contested decision and reject the European designation of the international trademark No 1 411 062 TRIM for all goods and services;

— impose the costs to the defendant and, in case Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. decides to intervene in the present proceedings, to Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging (in the alternative) that the applicant is in any event entitled to recover the Default Interest Amount by way of an action under the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, under Articles 268 and 340 TFEU and under Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, on the basis of the non-contractual liability of the Union owing to the Commission’s failure to pay default interest in compliance with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-105/17. In this regard, HBCE again relies in the alternative on Article 277 TFEU, in the event that the Commission seeks to use secondary legislation to justify its position and such legislation is interpreted in a manner inconsistent with HBCE’s Treaty rights.