ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/23

Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Torro Entertainment v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (TORRO Grande Meat in Style)

(Case T-63/18)

(2018/C 134/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Torro Entertainment (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Kostov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark TORRO Grande Meat in Style — Application for registration No 14 744 452

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2017 in Case R 1776/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in part where it dismisses the appeal against the decision of the Opposition division;

— order EUIPO and Grupo Osborne S.A. to bear the costs of ‘Torro Entertainment’ Ltd. in relation to the proceeding before the Court and in relation to the appeal and opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/62

Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (1000 PANORAMICZNYCH)

(Case T-121/18)

(2018/C 142/80)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o. o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 671

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2208/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;

and/or

— declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

in the alternative

— annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 671), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;

and/or

— declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation 2017/1001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/52

Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo v Commission

(Case T-41/18)

(2018/C 142/69)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo (Vigo, Spain) (represented by: J. Costas Alonso, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— ensure that the European Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, fulfills its obligation to ensure the uniform application of Community provisions by all the Member States, takes action to guarantee uniform application of EU legislation relating to imports of products of animal origin from third countries in all Member States, and standardises the rules governing such controls;

— in particular, order the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety to carry out a comparative analysis on the application of EU legislation that regulates imports of products of animal origin from third countries through the ports of Vigo and Leixoes (Portugal).

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that inconsistent application of EU legislation in relation to the importation of frozen and refrigerated fishery products from non-EU countries has skewed competition rules and the level playing field, leading to a distortion of the internal market.

In that regard, it also submits that ports play a key role in freight transportation and, more specifically, in relation to imports of fishery products, 76 % of which enter through ports.
Second plea in law: Misapplication of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Lack of an objective of common interest

Second, the Republic of Austria claims that, contrary to the view taken by the defendant, there is no common interest pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, which is required for authorisation of the aid.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/55

Action brought on 28 February 2018 — LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs v EUIPO (LITECRAFT)

(Case T-140/18)

(2018/C 161/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH (Ibbenbüren, Germany) (represented by: R. Plegge, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘LITECRAFT’ — Application for registration No 15 282 635

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2018 in Case R 699/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/54

Action brought on 26 February 2018 — Tomasz Kawałko Trofeum v EUIPO — Ferrero (KINDERPRAMS)

(Case T-115/18)

(2018/C 161/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Tomasz Kawałko Trofeum (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: P. Moksa, legal counsel)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferrero SpA (Alba, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘KINDERPRAMS’ — Application for registration No 12 916 961

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2017 in Case R 1112/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the contested decision by registering KINDERPRAMS as an EU trade mark;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/42

Action brought on 19 March 2018 — Andreas Stihl v EUIPO — Giro Travel (Combination of colours grey and orange)

(Case T-193/18)

(2018/C 166/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG (Waiblingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker, M. Pemsel and C. Eulenpesch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Giro Travel Company (Roman, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU colour mark representing the combination of colours grey and orange — Trade mark registration No 7 472 723

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2018 in Case R 200/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 13 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 13 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 182/23

Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Giove Gas v EUIPO — Primagaz (KALON AL CENTRO DELLA FAMIGLIA)

(Case T-34/18)

(2018/C 182/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giove Gas Srl (Tarquinia, Italy) (represented by: A. Bergonzini and F. Dinelli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘KALON AL CENTRO DELLA FAMIGLIA’ — Application for registration No 14 740 559

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 1271/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision in its entirety;

— order the registration of the mark.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/43

Action brought on 20 March 2018 — Vital Capital Investments and Others v Council and Others

(Case T-196/18)

(2018/C 166/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Vital Capital Investments LP (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) and 6 others (represented by: A. Markides, M. Ioannides, C. Velaris and C. Velaris, lawyers, A. Robertson, QC, and G. Rothschild, Barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup (represented by the Council of the European Union) and European Union (represented by the European Commission)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court, as compensation for damage suffered as a result of Eurogroup decisions concerning the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd (‘Laiki Bank’), the bail-in of Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited (‘Bank of Cyprus’) and the sale of assets and business of the said banks in Greece, and/or as a result of the provision of Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Laiki Bank with the consent of the European Central Bank and the subsequent transfer at the direction of the European Central Bank of the relevant liability to Bank of Cyprus;

or in the alternative:

— declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants;

and in any event:

— order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-147/18, APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others.
Case T-231/18: Action brought on 4 April 2018 — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO — Lupu (Djili)

Action brought on 4 April 2018 — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO — Lupu (Djili)

(Case T-231/18)

Parties

Applicant: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Dulovo, Bulgaria) (represented by: C. Romiţan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Victor Lupu (Bucharest, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Djili — Application for registration No 15 497 662

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2018 in Case R 1902/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject Lupu Victor’s appeal;

— order the opponent and the appellant Lupu Victor to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was an aural similarity between the signs;
—

failure to take into account certain essential factual elements, despite the fact that the defendant was fully aware of these at the time when the contested decision was adopted;
Case T-278/18: Action brought on 4 May 2018 — Nemius Group v EUIPO (DENTALDISK)

Action brought on 4 May 2018 — Nemius Group v EUIPO (DENTALDISK)

(Case T-278/18)

Parties

Applicant: Nemius Group GmbH (Obertshausen, Germany) (represented by: C. Bildhäuser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DENTALDISK’ — Application for registration No 15 804 024

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 January 2018 in Case R 741/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to the extent that EUIPO refused the application for registration in Class 10 and Class 35, in which the application for registration is, in any event, to be published;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Case T-261/18: Action brought on 26 April 2018 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of a black square containing seven concentric blue circles)

Action brought on 26 April 2018 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of a black square containing seven concentric blue circles)

(Case T-261/18)

Parties

Applicant: Roxtec AB (Karlskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wallmax Srl (Milano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark representing a black square containing seven concentric blue circles — EU trade mark No 14 338 735

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2018 in Case R 940/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred both in these proceedings and in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty, in so far as they relate to, and directly or indirectly regulate, the conditions for consenting to mergers, including, in particular, Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty and the provisions for their implementation, including, in particular, Article 6(1)(b) and Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation No 139/2004, by failing to carry out a full assessment of the negative effects of the concentration on competition, including, inter alia, an assessment of the effects of the concentration on the relevant markets determined on the basis of the O&D model. An assessment of the concentration within the O&D model, however, would bring to light a series of distortions of competition caused by that concentration.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches the principle of proportionality. — The Commission did not enjoy a broad discretionary power in adopting the Decision and the review of whether the Decision breaches the principle of proportionality should not be limited to reviewing whether the Decision is clearly or manifestly inappropriate in light of the objectives pursued. The Decision breaches the principle of proportionality since: — the Decision exceeds the limits of what is necessary to attain the pursued objectives; — the Commission did not choose the least onerous measure from the available appropriate measures; and — the disadvantages caused by the Decision are disproportionate to the objectives pursued. — Even if the Commission would enjoy a wide discretionary power, the Decision is nonetheless a manifestly inappropriate means of achieving the objectives pursued.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
—

declare that Article 1(1) of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt are inapplicable, insofar as they apply to the applicants; and
1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to sound administration. The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not exercise due care and attention in the adoption of Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018, since before the adoption of the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence he had adduced, which supports his case, and it primarily based that decision on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigations in the Ukraine.
Case T-333/18: Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (marry me)

Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (marry me)

(Case T-333/18)

Parties

Applicant: Marry Me Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Theado, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark with the word element ‘marry me’ — Application for registration No 15 952 468

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 in Case R 807/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law
Case T-367/18: Action brought on 15 June 2018 — Sixsigma Networks Mexico/EUIPO — Marijn van Oosten Holding (UKIO)

Action brought on 15 June 2018 — Sixsigma Networks Mexico/EUIPO — Marijn van Oosten Holding (UKIO)

(Case T-367/18)

Parties

Applicant: Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: C. Casas Feu and J. Dorado Lopez-Lozano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marijn van Oosten Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant/Proprietor of 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 UKIO/European Union trade mark No 15 079 023

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2018 in Case R 1536/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Case T-381/18: Action brought on 25 June 2018 — Engel v EUIPO — F. Engel (ENGEL)

Action brought on 25 June 2018 — Engel v EUIPO — F. Engel (ENGEL)

(Case T-381/18)

Parties

Applicant: Engel GmbH (Pfullingen, Germany) (represented by: C. Pfitzer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: F. Engel K/S (Haderslev, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ENGEL — International registration designating the European Union No 1 178 629

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2018 in Case R 1423/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— to stay the proceedings until decisions have been made upon request for invalidation of F.ENGEL’s trademarks.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 20(7)(c) of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95;
Case T-344/18: Action brought on 04 June 2018 — Rubycon and Rubycon Holdings/Commission

Action brought on 04 June 2018 — Rubycon and Rubycon Holdings/Commission

(Case T-344/18)

Parties

Applicants: Rubycon Corp. (Ina City, Japan) and Rubycon Holdings Co. Ltd (Ina City) (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés, A. Federle and M. Relange, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2018) 1768 final of 21 March 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case AT.40136 — Capacitors — as far as it relates to Rubycon, in particular Article 1(h), Article 2(k), Article 2(l) and Article 4;

— order a substantial reduction in the fine imposed on Rubycon under Article 2 of the contested decision to a level that it is not discriminatory and Rubycon’s exceptional level of cooperation is rewarded;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law as regards the Commission’s refusal to grant Rubycon the benefit of ‘partial immunity’ under point 26 of the Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases ( 1 ) for the increased gravity of the infringement.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is insufficiently motivated and vitiated by an error of law as regards the Commission’s conclusion not to depart from the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 ( 2 ) and not to grant Rubycon an additional fine reduction, in breach of the EU law principles of proportionality and equal treatment, and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and the offence.

( 1 ) Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2006 C 298, p. 17).

( 2 ) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the first paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union conferring the right to proper administration on all persons. In particular, the contested decision was taken in breach of the applicant’s right to be heard and of observance of the rights of the defence.