ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 7 November 2019 — Ungureanu v Commission

(Case T-753/19)

(2020/C 68/51)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Simeda Ungureanu (Cluj-Napoca, Romania) (represented by: R. Chiriță, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— find that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligation of ensuring that the Member States comply with the Treaties of the European Union and respect human rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage caused, estimated at EUR 40 000;

— order the defendant to remedy the existing omissions in the future.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant submits that the conditions for liability on the part of the European Commission are satisfied, since that institution failed to act in order to compel the Romanian State to comply with its obligations deriving from the Treaties of the European Union and from the right to life of its citizens, in so far as the Romanian State did not enact provisions enabling persons who are in particular situations and in respect of whom it is vital to administer medicinal products for therapeutic indications not included in the summary of product characteristics (off-label medicinal products) to have access to medical treatment.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 January 2020 – Forex Bank v EUIPO – Coino UK (FOREX)

(Case T-26/20)

(2020/C 68/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Forex Bank AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: A. Jute, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coino UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark FOREX – European Union trade mark No 4 871 836

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 in Case R 2460/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the Cancellation Division’s decision;

— order that the European Union trade mark No 4 871 836 remains in force;

— order the EUIPO to bear the applicant’s costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, the Boards of Appeal, as well as the General Court with an amount to be specified later.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 January 2020 – Skyliners v EUIPO – Sky (SKYLINERS)

(Case T-15/20)

(2020/C 61/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Skyliners GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

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 SKYLINERS – Application for registration No 14 570 915

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2019 in Case R 798/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the EUIPO and, in the event that the Other Party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the Intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Rules 19(2) and 15(2)(h)(iii) of Regulation (EC) 2868/95 of the Commission;

— Infringement of Rule 50(1) third subparagraph of Regulation (EC) 2868/95 of the Commission and Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 February 2020 — Bezos Family Foundation v EUIPO — SNCF Mobilités (VROOM)

(Case T-56/20)

(2020/C 87/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bezos Family Foundation (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: A. Klett and M. Schaffner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SNCF Mobilités, établissement public à caractère industriel et commercial (Saint-Denis, France)

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 VROOM — Application for registration No 17 569 997

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2019 in Case R 1288/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition No B 3 051 050;

— authorize the registration of the European Union trade mark application ‘VROOM’ No 17 569 997;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and before the EUIPO (Board of Appeal and Opposition Division) including the necessary expenses of the applicant in those proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 January 2020 – KRBL v EUIPO – P.K. Overseas (INDIA SALAM Pure Basmati Rice)

(Case T-45/20)

(2020/C 77/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KRBL Ltd (Delhi, India) (represented by: P. Strickland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: P.K. Overseas Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore)

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 figurative mark INDIA SALAM Pure Basmati Rice with the colour indications light brown, sepia and white yellow – International registration designating the European Union No 1 126 413

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2019 in Case R 766/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— allow the appeal and refuse the application;

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 13 February 2019 relating to Opposition Proceedings No B 2 201 385;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of these 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 alleging breach of the terms of the applicant’s letter of appointment of 5 March 2014 and the addendum thereto, on the ground that those documents and the extension of the applicant’s term of service after 15 March 2017 are evidence of an agreement authorising him to work until the age of 67 and even beyond that age.
Action brought on 3 February 2020 — NetCologne v Commission

(Case T-58/20)

(2020/C 95/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Geppert, P. Schmitz and J. Schulze zur Wiesche, Rechtsanwälte)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2019) 5187 final of 18 July 2019 declaring a concentration in Case M.8864 — Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that, in taking the view that there is no significant impediment to effective competition on the ‘market for the retail supply of TV signal transmission to multi-dwelling-unit customers’, the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons and infringed its duty of care with regard to: — the assumption that the parties to the concentration are not direct competitors, — the assumption that the parties to the concentration are not potential competitors and — the concentration’s negative impacts on competitors.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that, in taking the view that there is no significant impediment to effective competition on the ‘market for the retail supply of TV signal transmission to single-dwelling-unit customers’, the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons and infringed its duty of care with regard to the assumption that the parties to the concentration are neither potential nor direct competitors.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment and infringed Article 2 and Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) when defining the market and assessing the competitive impact of the supply of multiple play offers, in particular offers of fixed telecommunications services combined with mobile telecommunications services (‘FMC offers’).

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment, infringed Article 2 and Article 8 of Regulation No 139/2004, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons and infringed its duty of care when assessing and in considering as acceptable the Wholesale Cable Broadband Access commitment.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2020 — Biochange Group v EUIPO — Laubender (medical beauty research)

(Case T-98/20)

(2020/C 114/20)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Biochange Group GmbH (Bad Schlema, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laubender GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘medical beauty research’ — EU trade mark No 4 215 935

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2019 in Case R 114/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Laubender GmbH, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Ramazani Shadary v Council

(Case T-104/20)

(2020/C 129/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 11 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 11 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 (General block exemption Regulation) in a form which does not ensure observance of Article 107 TFEU. Under Article 109 TFEU, the Council is authorised to specify by regulation areas in which the standard procedure, in which the Commission assesses the proposal for State aid and tests it in accordance with Article 107 TFEU, does not apply. The Council adopted Regulation No 659/1999 and in that regulation (in accordance with Article 108(4) TFEU) authorised the Commission to issue regulations governing the conditions for the provision of State aid outside the standard ‘ad hoc’ approval regime. The Commission adopted Regulation No 70/2001, subsequently Regulation No 800/2008 and subsequently Regulation No 651/2014 (General block exemption Regulations). However, in their regulations neither the Council nor the Commission could go beyond the framework of Article 107 TFEU; their role must consist in laying down the conditions for State aid so that Member States who implement State aid in ‘exempted’ areas could not implement State aid which would conflict with the principle of non-interference in competition, even if the aid is exempted from the standard procedure before the Commission. This is another reason why the Commission’s monitoring (set out and guaranteed under the TFEU) of aid regimes even in exempted areas is ongoing, why (at least in theory) proceedings for the recovery of unlawful aid are available, and why the EU still declares itself to be a market economy, that is an economy which produces goods and services which consumers voluntarily procure in an attempt to optimise the income/expense ratio, and not goods and services which are determined by politicians and officials.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2020 — Intis v EUIPO — Televes (TELEVEND)

(Case T-112/20)

(2020/C 137/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intis d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: T. Nagy, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Televes, SA (Santiago de Compostela, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark TELEVEND — European Union trade mark No 15 547 871

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2019 in Case R 1923/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, in which the applicant alleges that the Board of Appeal erred in law in finding, in the contested decision, that the ECHA should have taken into account the Schönholzer (1997) study even though that study had not been introduced to it during the evaluation procedure. In that regard, the applicant raises the following complaints: — first, infringement of Article 47(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1); — second, breach of the duty on manufacturers and importers to provide all relevant and available information on the risks presented by the substances, which constitutes one of the core principles of the protection system established by that regulation; — third, the exercise of an inadequate standard of review of the ECHA’s three decisions on the substance evaluations concerned.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 March 2020 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Sanolie (SANOLIE)

(Case T-175/20)

(2020/C 175/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sanolie (Istanbul, Turkey)

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 SANOLIE — Application for registration No 17 042 292

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2020 in Case R 2405/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in relation to the grant for the goods sought: ‘body cream; face cream; body oils; facial oils; oils for cosmetic use’ in Class 3;

— reject the application for European Union trade mark No 17 042 292 ‘SANOLIE’ with regard to the aforementioned goods, ‘body cream; face cream; body oils; facial oils; oils for cosmetic use’ in Class 3;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2020 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Types)

(Case T-96/20)

(2020/C 191/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Limbic® Types — Application No 12 316 469

Contested decision: Decision of the EUIPO Grand Board of Appeal of 2 December 2019 in Case R 1276/2017-G

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

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

— Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 March 2020 — BSH Hausgeräte v EUIPO (Home Connect)

(Case T-152/20)

(2020/C 191/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BSH Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark Home Connect — Application for registration No 18 077 851

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 January 2020 in Case R 1751/2019-5

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)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons (Article 296(2) TFEU). The applicant criticises the Council for merely giving vague and general considerations without stating, in a specific and concrete manner, the reasons why it considers, in the exercise of its discretion, that the applicant must be the subject of the restrictive measures at issue. Thus, no concrete and objective allegations have been raised against the applicant that could justify the measures at issue. The statement of reasons adopted by the Council does not provide the applicant with sufficient information and is, to say the least, vague, general and imprecise.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 April 2020 — Aldi Stores v EUIPO — Dualit (Shape of a toaster)

(Case T-199/20)

(2020/C 201/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Stores Ltd (Atherstone, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Barker, Solicitor and C. Blythe, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dualit Ltd (Crawley, United Kingdom)

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 tridimensional mark (Shape of a toaster) — European Union trade mark No 48 728

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2020 in Case R 1034/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— alternatively, annul the contested decision and remit the case to the EUIPO, straight to the Cancellation Division or to the Boards of Appeal;

— in the further alternative, annul the contested decision and uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity pursuant to Articles 7(1)(a), (e)(ii) and/or (e)(iii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— order the EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of an essential procedural requirement, alternatively infringement of Article 27(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

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

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 April 2020 — Square v EUIPO ($ Cash App)

(Case T-210/20)

(2020/C 209/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Square, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, K. Lüder, and T. Dolde, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark $ Cash App — International registration designating the European Union No 1 410 819

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2020 in Case R 811/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Operations Department and the First Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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