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

Action brought on 7 July 2021 — BPCE and Others v SRB

(Case T-385/21)

(2021/C 338/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: BPCE (Paris, France) and 44 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2021/22 of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;

— pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable: — Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; — Article 4(2) and Articles 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; — Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-383/21, Banque postale v SRB.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the principle of equal treatment. The applicant also raises a plea of illegality of Commission Decision SEC(2007) 605 of 10 May 2007 on the principles and procedures applicable to the promotion of senior management staff, on the ground, inter alia, that it does not provide for appeals to be dealt with by a body other than the Advisory Committee for the Promotion of Senior Management Staff. Furthermore, the applicant submits that that committee should have the possibility of upholding an appeal without being limited by the promotion quotas which are exhausted when the list of promoted officials is drawn up.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made an error of fact in its explanation of the restrictions imposed under the slot release agreement. The applicant states that the agreement, negotiated by British Airways and Flybe limited (formerly Thyme OPCO Limited), makes no reference to any need for any slot transfer to be accompanied by the transfer of the operating licence. The applicant alleges that the Commission, by adding the wording ‘i.e. together with Thyme’s OL’ in footnote 23 is therefore incorrect in what is meant to be a summary of the agreement.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of homogeneity of the legal order

By adopting the Commission decision, the Commission is going against its own 2011 decision on aid.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 July 2021 — Apex Brands v EUIPO — SARTORIUS Werkzeuge (SATA)

(Case T-430/21)

(2021/C 357/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Apex Brands, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: S. Fröhlich, H. Lerchl and M. Hartmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SARTORIUS Werkzeuge GmbH & Co. KG (Ratingen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SATA — Application for registration No 18 051 525

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2021 in Case R 2322/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant.

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 4 August 2021 — Schenk Italia v EUIPO — Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella (AMICONE)

(Case T-474/21)

(2021/C 382/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Schenk Italia SpA (Ora, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and M. Lucchini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella (San Pietro in Cariano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark AMICONE — European Union trade mark No 11 005 725

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 June 2021 in Case R 2885/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— find and declare that the European Union mark AMICONE No 11 005 725 does not constitute an evocation of the PDO ‘Amarone della Valpolicella’ for the purposes of Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, (1) that it is not caught by any of the other absolute and relative grounds for invalidity raised by the Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella and that it is therefore valid;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella and any other interveners.

Pleas in law

— Incorrect identification of the significant part of the PDO ‘Amarone della Valpolicella’ for the purposes of the application of Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013;

— Incorrect application of Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 as regards the assessment of the evocation of the PDO by the contested mark;

— Incorrect application of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council read in conjunction with Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— The mark AMICONE is not caught by any other absolute or relative ground for invalidity relied on by the Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).
1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of Articles 4, 8, 27, 29 and 110 of Staff Regulations and of the principles of continuity of EU officials, of the comparison of merits and of transparency;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-505/21)

(2021/C 401/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 1 431 829-0010

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2021 in Case R 1003/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision to: — allow the applicant’s appeal, — dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicant’s application ICD 10 296 to declare the contested design invalid, — order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;

— order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s fees and costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155);

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172);

— Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 August 2021 — Coulter Ventures v EUIPO — iWeb (R)

(Case T-457/21)

(2021/C 391/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Coulter Ventures LLC (Columbus, Ohio, United States) (represented by: R. Dissmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: iWeb GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

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 figurative mark R — Application for registration No 13 750 849

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2021 in Case R 2789/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs including the applicant’s costs incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Plea in law
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a lack of evidence. The applicant claims that, according to consistent case-law, the effectiveness of judicial review requires that, in order to review the legality of the grounds on which the decision to list or maintain the name of a particular person on the lists of persons subject to sanctions, the Courts of the European Union must satisfy themselves that that decision has a sufficiently sound factual basis. However, the Council’s allegations concerning both the ‘close ties with the regime’ and a supposed role as an intermediary in oil transactions between the regime and ISIL are entirely unfounded and should therefore be definitively rejected.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)

(Case T-548/21)

(2021/C 422/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor 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 word mark ROCHEM — International registration designating the European Union No 1 151 545

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2021 in Case R 1546/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— stay the proceeding until a final judgement has been taken in the proceeding before the court of Milan against the Italian trade mark 933481 ROCHEM MARINE (fig.);

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision, ordering that the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO renders a new decision, refusing the declaration of invalidation filed against the international registration No 1 151 545 ROCHEM (word) against the classes 11 and 40;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should the latter appear before the Court, to bear their own costs and the fees and costs of the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 September 2021 — Agrarfrost v EUIPO — McCain (Shape of a smiley)

(Case T-553/21)

(2021/C 422/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Agrarfrost GmbH & Co. KG (Wildeshausen, Germany) (represented by: H. Förster and A. Ebert-Weidenfeller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: McCain GmbH (Eschborn, 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: European Union three-dimensional mark (Shape of a smiley) –European Union trade mark No 1 801 166

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2021 in Case R 1088/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal of the defendant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures breach the principle of effective judicial protection. It is argued to this end that since 18 June 2012, the applicant’s name is Open Joint Stock Company ‘BELAZ’ — Management Company of Holding ‘BELAZHOLDING’. By referring to Belarusski Avtomobilnyi Zavod (BelAZ) / OJSC ‘BELAZ’, a name that the applicant never used as its official registered company name (either full or shortened), the Contested Measures fail to properly identify the designated entity. As a result, the applicant is not able to determine the exact scope of the Contested Measures.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 July 2021 — Fursin and Others v ECB

(Case T-428/21)

(2021/C 452/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ivan Fursin (Kyiv, Ukraine) and 6 other applicants (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay financial compensation in respect of the harm which the applicants have suffered as a result of the defendant’s decision to revoke the license of Trasta Komercbanka AS on 11 July 2016 (notified on 13 July 2016);

— determine that the material damage amounts to at least EUR 25 million (1) together with a compensatory interest starting at 11 July 2016 until delivery of the judgment in the present case and with corresponding default interest from the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to properly notify the licence withdrawal decision to Trasta Komercbanka AS’ authorized representatives.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the procedure leading to the licence withdrawal decision did not involve a proper representation of Trasta Komercbanka AS.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the licence withdrawal decision is vitiated by a number of other serious irregularities.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted outside its area of competence when issuing the licence withdrawal decision, in particular with regard to money laundering matters and the enforcement of national law.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant erroneously assumed grounds for a licence withdrawal and provided an insufficient statement of reason in this regard.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s illegal conduct caused significant damage to the applicants, including as a result of Trasta Komercbanka AS’ liquidation.

(1) The amounts are attributable to each of the applicants in the amounts of their shareholding of Trasta Komercbanka AS, as set out in the licence withdrawal decision of 3 March 2016.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement, exceeding of power, infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, or misuse of powers, particularly improper legal evaluation of facts and findings (breach of right to good administration, exceeding of power, breach of principle of proportionality, principle of legal certainty, rule of law, principle of legal expectations and improper legal evaluation of facts and findings in the process of the selection and award of grants under Connecting Europe Facility 2018-1 CEF Telecom call for proposals CEF-TC- 2018-1, particularly Action No. 2018-SK-IA-0019 Slovak Safer Internet Centre V submitted by eSlovensko Bratislava).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Lemken v EUIPO (sky blue)

(Case T-621/21)

(2021/C 462/72)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lemken GmbH & Co. KG (Alpen, Germany) (represented by: I. Kuschel and W. von der Osten-Sacken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU colour mark sky blue (RAL:5015) — Application for registration No 18 097 467

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 July 2021 in Case R 2037/2020-1

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;

— Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları and Others v Commission

(Case T-629/21)

(2021/C 471/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları TAŞ (Istanbul, Turkey), İskenderun Demir ve Çelik AŞ (Payas, Turkey), Erdemir Çelik Servis Merkezi Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Gebze, Turkey) (represented by: J. Cornelis and F. Graafsma, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1100 of 5 July 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Turkey (OJ 2021 L 238, p. 32); and

— order the European Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(10)(j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) by carrying out a currency conversion that is not required. The applicants further allege that the chapeau of Article 2(10) and Article 2(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 were also violated because the costs were not established on the basis of the records kept by the applicants.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(10)(j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 as well as Article 2.4 of WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and the principle of sound administration by rejecting an adjustment for hedging gains and losses.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 2(5), 2(6) and the chapeau of Article 2(10) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 by double counting certain selling, general and administrative expenses for Isdemir domestic sales through Erdemir.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 and Article 2.2.2 of WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement by excluding foreign exchange gains and losses from the selling, general and administrative expenses.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (JO 2016 L 176, p. 21).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 October 2021 — Target Brands v EUIPO — The a.r.t. company b&s (ART CLASS)

(Case T-637/21)

(2021/C 471/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Target Brands, Inc. (Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The a.r.t. company b&s, SA (Quel, Spain)

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 ART CLASS — Application for registration No 16 888 695

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2021 in Case R 1597/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal as well as the Opposition Division.

Plea in law
—

The statement of reasons for including the applicant on the lists annexed to the contested measures does not meet the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. It is vague and lacks detail. Reasons such as ‘access to the Lukashenka family’ and ‘procurement of lucrative contracts for his businesses’ as well as the ground that the applicant was supported by Mr Viktar Lukashenka are too general and vague. The claim that Bremino-Grupp OOO, in which the applicant in fact has a stake, received improper State support for the development of the ‘Bremino-Orsha’ special economic zone or ‘a number of financial and tax advantages’ is too imprecise to understand how the treatment of that economic zone differs from that of the other free economic zones existing in Belarus.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Executive Director Office (EDO) and Corporate Support Services (CSS) decisions are illegal, in so far as they result from the decision of 5 August 2020 publishing two vacancy notices for the posts of EDO and CSS Heads of Unit which is also illegal.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 September 2021 — Rimini Street v EUIPO (WE DO SUPPORT)

(Case T-634/21)

(2021/C 502/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rimini Street, Inc. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: E. Ratjen, lawyer)

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 word mark WE DO SUPPORT — Application for registration No 1 559 178

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2021 in Case R 710/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that since no objectives have been fixed for 2019, the defendant could not conduct a proper and fair appraisal of the applicant’s performance in 2019. It is alleged that this lack of objectives has resulted in manifest errors of appreciation, in a breach of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) and Article 108(2) TFEU and infringement of the 2004 Guidelines for rescuing and restructuring. — The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in the application of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, including with regard to the 2004 Guidelines, in so far as it concluded that the rescue aid to Siremar was illegally prolonged for a year and is incompatible with EU State aid rules.