ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/48

Action brought on 18 May 2016 – Freddo v EUIPO – Freddo Freddo (Freggo)

(Case T-243/16)

(2016/C 243/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Freddo SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, K. Gilbert, G. Lodge, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Freddo Freddo, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Freggo’ – Application for registration No 7 606 064

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 February 2016 in Case R 919/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO (and if it intervenes, the other party to the proceedings before the Office) to pay its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and breach of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, to the extent that the Commission did not correctly assess the existence of an advantage and did not apply the private-investor principle. — The Commission failed to investigate whether the contested aid measure actually led to the conferral of an advantage, for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, on the recipient undertakings. This was in spite of the fact that that condition is a prerequisite for State aid, and that the Commission is thus required to examine it before deciding on whether State aid exists, failing which it will be in breach of its obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU. — The Belgian State, in attributing the contested ruling to the applicant, conducted itself purely as an economic operator in the market economy. The Belgian State thereby invested a sum of money in the applicant, in the form of the grant of tax relief, from which, on the basis of the conditions imposed on the applicant, it could expect to be able to make significant economic returns. Given that the private-investor test is not an exception to be applied by the Commission solely at the request of the Member State in question, the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU and breached its obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU in failing to investigate whether or not the private-investor test was satisfied.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/45

Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Trost Auto Service Technik v EUIPO (AUTOSERVICE.COM)

(Case T-259/16)

(2016/C 251/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Trost Auto Service Technik SE (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘AUTOSERVICE.COM’ — Application for registration No 13 593 678

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 1770/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/45

Appeal brought on 12 May 2016 by José Luis Ruiz Molina against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 March 2016 in Case F-60/15, Ruiz Molina v OHIM

(Case T-233/16 P)

(2016/C 243/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: José Luis Ruiz Molina (San Juan de Alicante, Spain) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and S. Michiels, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should

— set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 2 March 2016 in Case F-60/15;

— order the respondent to the appeal to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings in their entirety.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.

1. First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union.

2. Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the principle of res judicata attaching to the judgment of 15 September 2011 in Bennett and Others v OHIM, F-102/09, EU:F:2011:138.

3. Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) which implemented the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999 between the general cross-industry organisations, and infringement of well established principles and standards of international social and labour law on stable employment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/45

Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Grizzly Tools v Commission

(Case T-168/16)

(2016/C 270/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co. KG (Großostheim, Germany) (represented by: H. Fischer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/175 of 8 February 2016 on a measure taken by Spain pursuant to Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, to prohibit the placing on the market of a type of pressure washer (OJ 2016, L 33, p. 12);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. Infringement of essential requirements of form The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the duty to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU in so far as its recitals are contradictory and unclear. Moreover, the contested decision infringes the principle that the Commission is to state the facts of the case correctly. In the fourth recital, the Commission incorrectly alleges that the applicant made reference in the EC Declaration of Conformity to the standard EN-60335-2-67-2009, which is incorrect.

2. Infringement of Article 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC (1)

The applicant claims that the Commission incorrectly took the view that the measure taken by Spain to prohibit the placing on the market was justified.

In particular, the Spanish authorities and the Commission characterised the pressure washer as of dual use, capable of being used not only as a portable appliance, but also as a hand-held appliance. They therefore considered a higher level of safety to be necessary despite the pressure washer not being intended for use as a hand-held appliance and there being no reasonably foreseeable misuse within the meaning of Article 11(1) of Directive 2006/42/EC in its use as a hand-held pressure washer.

(1) Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (OJ 2006 L 157, p. 24).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/51

Action brought on 2 June 2016 – Convivo v EUIPO – Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos (M'Cooky)

(Case T-288/16)

(2016/C 260/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Convivo GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: C. Düchs, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos C.A. Pronaca (Quito, Ecuador)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘M’Cooky’ – International registration designating the European Union No 1 075 242

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2016 in Case R 1039/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant for the present judicial proceedings including those incurred in the appeal and opposition proceedings;

— order the EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/29

Action brought on 12 April 2016 — NC v Commission

(Case T-151/16)

(2016/C 279/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NC (represented by: J. Killick and G. Forwood, Barristers and C. Van Haute and A. Bernard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 28 January 2016 to exclude the applicant from participation in procedures for the award of procurement contracts and grants financed by the general budget of the European Union, and to enter the applicant in the Early Detection and Exclusion System provided for at Article 108(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1);

— adopt the requested measures of organisation of procedure; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient penalty (lex mitior), in failing to apply Regulation No 966/2012 as amended by Regulation 2015/1929 (1) to the contested decision.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a breach of an essential procedural requirement in failing to consult the panel and to revise its decision as required by Regulation No 966/2012 as amended by Regulation 2015/1929.

3. Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and Article 133a(1) of Regulation No 2342/2002 (2) in applying an exclusion that is disproportionate in the circumstances.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and the principle of ne bis in idem to the extent that the applicant has already been excluded for the same conduct.

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/31

Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-888TII RU)

(Case T-317/16)

(2016/C 287/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SDC-888TII RU’– Application for registration No 12 781 225

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 1566/2015-2

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 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law and manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and its classification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 107 TFUE.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/32

Action brought on 28 June 2016 — Hello Media v EUIPO — Hola (#hello media group)

(Case T-331/16)

(2016/C 296/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hello Media, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hola, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘#hello media group’ — Application for registration No 12 441 317

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21/04/2016 in Case R 2012/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject opposition B 2 336 371 to the application for a European Union trade mark No 12 441 317;

— order the grant of European Union trade mark No 12 441 317 ‘#hello media group’ (with graphic);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/42

Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA)

(Case T-312/16)

(2016/C 305/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Walfood SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Cornu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Romanov Holding, SL (La Moraleja, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘CHATKA’ — International registration designating the European Union No 876 349

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 2870/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 326/30

Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Sabre GLBL v EUIPO (INSTASITE)

(Case T-375/16)

(2016/C 326/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sabre GLBL, Inc. (Southlake, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘INSTASITE’ — Application for registration No 13 882 162

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2016 in Case R 1742/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/32

Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Tillotts Pharma v EUIPO — Ferring (XENASA)

(Case T-362/16)

(2016/C 314/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tillotts Pharma AG (Rheinfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘XENASA’ — Application for registration No 11 920 055

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 in Case R 3264/2014-4

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 343/43

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Galletas Gullon v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (shape of a package)

(Case T-418/16)

(2016/C 343/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Galletas Gullon, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: tridimensional mark (shape of a package) — EU trade mark No 3 417 847

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 in Case R 1614/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/50

Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Starbucks v EUIPO — Nersesyan (COFFEE ROCKS)

(Case T-398/16)

(2016/C 335/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Starbucks Corp. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor and J. Schmitt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hasmik Nersesyan (Borgloon, Belgium)

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: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘COFFEE ROCKS’ — Application for registration No 11 881 943

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2016 in Case R 559/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision given by the Office on 24 May 2016 in Case R 559/2015-4; and

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, or — in the event that the other party intervenes — that they be borne jointly by the defendant and the intervener.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Freundin)

(Case T-452/16)

(2016/C 364/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Beste Freundin’ — Application for registration No 14 169 916

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 in Case R 96/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 103(2) and (7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (1) and of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (2)

The applicant claims that the defendant’s decision concerning its annual contribution is unlawful because it takes account, for the purpose of reducing the contribution, only of the applicant’s development business and not of its auxiliary development business as well. As a result, the applicant’s annual contribution to the restructuring fund for the contribution year from 1 January to 31. December 2016 has been set too high.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Tetra Pharm (1997) v EUIPO — Sebapharma (SeboCalm)

(Case T-441/16)

(2016/C 364/24)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: A. Gorzkiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sebapharma GmbH & Co. KG (Boppard, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SeboCalm’ — EU trade mark application No 12 014 461

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 in Case R 852/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party before EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 383/15

Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Falegnameria Universo dei F.lli Priarollo v EUIPO — Zanini Porte (silente PORTE & PORTE)

(Case T-386/16)

(2016/C 383/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Falegnameria Universo dei F.lli Priarollo Snc (Caerano di San Marco, Italy) (represented by: B. Osti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zanini Porte (Corbiolo di Bosco Chiesanuova, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘silente PORTE & PORTE’ — European Union trade mark No 4 191 425

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 240/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— as a preliminary point, ascertain that the Board of Appeal went beyond what had been sought and, in consequence, refer the decision back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO for infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009, taking into account Article 1(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96 of 5 February 1996, as amended, concerning the referral of a case to a Board of Appeal that has not already heard the case;

— on the merits, alter the contested decision and, consequently, order EUIPO to pay the fees and costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal because the decision is unfounded in fact and in law, and at all events to pay the costs, on an equitable basis;

— by way of measure of inquiry, order production of the files relating to proceedings No 000008977 C before the Cancellation Division of EUIPO and resulting Case No R0240/2015.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;