ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/32

Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Novartis v EUIPO — SK Chemicals (Representation of a patch)

(Case T-44/16)

(2016/C 111/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Suisse) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SK Chemicals GmbH (Eschborn, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a patch) — EU trade mark registration No 11 293 362

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2015 in Case R 2342/2014-5

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 Article7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 80(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/37

Action brought on 23 February 2016 — Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland v EMA

(Case T-80/16)

(2016/C 136/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: D. Anderson, QC, M. Birdling, Barrister, G. Castle and S. Cowlishaw, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Medicines Agency dated 15 December 2015 and communicated to the applicant on 18 December 2015 refusing to validate an application pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1) for designation as an orphan medicinal product; and

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in its interpretation and application of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000. The applicant contends that the defendant:

— misapplied Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 by failing to appreciate the procedural nature of the validation process;

— should not have concluded that the conditions for designation were not (or could not be) established;

— erroneously elided the concepts of ‘medicinal product’ and ‘active substance’ contrary to Articles 3 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000;

— misapplied and erroneously relied upon the communication from the European Commission on Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (2);

— erroneously placed reliance on the fact that the applicant had previously received protocol assistance pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000; and

— frustrated the objective of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 as identified by Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 and its recitals.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).

(2) Communication (2003/C 178/02) from the Commission on Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2003 C 178, p. 2).
—

annul the decision of the Commission of 19 November 2015 with reference Ares(2015)5212500 confirming its decision of 14 September 2015 with reference Ares(2015)3790389 in which the Commission took an additional decision on the request for information of 3 February 2015, submitted by the EEB; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/18

Action brought on 23 March 2016 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO — bpost (BEPOST)

(Case T-118/16)

(2016/C 165/20)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and G. Müllejans, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: bpost NV (Brussels, Belgium)

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: EU word mark ‘BEPOST’ — Application No 8 897 829

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 in Case R 3107/2014-1

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 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Second plea in law, alleging an error in law in holding that the Opinion does not constitute a decision in the meaning of Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 (2).

The Board of Appeal of ACER erred in law in holding that E-Control’s appeal against the Opinion was inadmissible because ACER’s Opinion did not constitute a decision in the meaning of Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009, denying E-Control the right to appeal. The Opinion subject to the appeal constitutes a decision in the meaning of Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 as it has direct legal effects on E-Control. Therefore, a right to appeal exists and the Board of Appeal would have had to consider the appeal by E-Control on its merits.
—

annul the European Central Bank decision of 29 January 2016 (ECB/SSM/2016 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/100) adopted under Article 4(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank and under Articles L. 511-13, L. 511-52, L. 511-58, L. 612-23-1 and R. 612-29-3 of the French monetary and financial code (code monétaire et financier français).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/25

Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (BURLINGTON THE ORIGINAL)

(Case T-121/16)

(2016/C 175/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Burlington Fashion GmbH (Schmallenberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: 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 containing the word elements ‘BURLINGTON THE ORIGINAL’ – International registration designating the European Union No 1 007 952

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 in Case R 2501/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject the contested mark in respect of all of the contested goods;

— order the payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/29

Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Groningen Seaports and Others v Commission

(Case T-160/16)

(2016/C 200/42)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Groningen Seaports NV (Delfzijl, Netherlands), Havenbedrijf Amsterdam NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Havenbedrijf Rotterdam NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Havenschap Moerdijk (Moerdijk, Netherlands), NV Port of Den Helder (Den Helder, Netherlands), Zeeland Seaports NV (Terneuzen, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and I. Kieft, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants challenge the Commission Decision of 21 January 2016 on aid measure SA.25338 (2014/C) (ex E 3/2008 and ex CP 115/2004) implemented by the Netherlands — Corporate tax exemption for public undertakings.

In support of their action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law.

Single plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the objectives of the State-aid rules, infringement of the general principles of EU law, in particular the principle of equality, the requirement that decisions should be prepared with due care and the prohibition of arbitrary conduct, and breach of the obligation to state reasons.

— The public seaports in the Netherlands compete, not with Dutch private undertakings, but with French, Belgian and German seaports in the Hamburg-Le Havre range.

— Those European competitors receive, to the detriment of the Dutch public seaports, a variety of forms of State aid. The Commission was aware of this when it adopted the contested decision. In the same way as the Dutch public seaports, all competing seaports within the Hamburg-Le Havre range enjoy an exemption from corporate tax. In addition, the German seaports receive very substantial operating aid in the form of loss compensation. The Commission was also aware of this when it adopted the contested decision.

— The contested decision unilaterally abolishes the tax exemption in force for the Dutch public seaports, whereas the corresponding exemptions for the Belgian and French seaports are being maintained for the time being and there has as yet not even been a first formal procedural step taken towards abolishing aid to the German seaports.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU. — The applicants argue that nature conservation in the Netherlands is a service of general interest within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol (No 26) on services of general interest (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 308), and thus does not constitute an economic activity. — The applicants claim that they were wrongly classified as undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The applicants argue primarily that they are not-for-profit terreinbeherende organisaties (land management organisations) established to fulfil a (non-economic) public purpose. In the alternative, the applicants argue that they are not undertakings where they acquire land for nature conservation by means of subsidies under the Regeling bijdragen particuliere terreinbeherende natuur beschermingsorganisaties (Regulation on contributions to private land managing nature conservation organisations). — The subsidy scheme does not lead to an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, in view of the subsidy scheme conditions attached. — The aid scheme does not lead to a distortion of competition. — The aid scheme does not have an effect on trade between Member States.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY)

(Case T-179/16)

(2016/C 222/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guinot SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASTER SMOKY’ — Application for registration No 11 567 104

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2905/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (WIDIBA)

(Case T-83/16)

(2016/C 211/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (Siena, Italy), Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan and D. Contini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ING-DIBa AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Applicants

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘WIDIBA’ — Application for registration No 12 192 308

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 in Joined Cases R 112/2015-2 and R 190/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision as it did not grant the request for restitutio in integrum, and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

In the event of dismissal of conclusion 1) above,

— annul the contested decision as it upheld the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the trade mark application No 12 192 308 for some specific goods and services, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 308 is eligible for registration for such goods and services or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures;

In any case,

— annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld ING-DIBa’s appeal on credit cards, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 308 is eligible for registration for such goods or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures;

In any case,

— order EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, also the costs and legal fees borne by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Wise Dialog Bank SpA with regard to the present proceedings and the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 81(1) and 60 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/32

Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Mühlbauer Technology v EUIPO (Magicrown)

(Case T-218/16)

(2016/C 232/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mühlbauer Technology GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Zintler and A. Stolz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Magicrown’ — Application No 13 627 641

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2016 in Case R 1213/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — CMS (CMS Italy)

(Case T-161/16)

(2016/C 222/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Costruzione Macchine Speciali Srl (CMS) (Alonte, Italy)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CMS ITALY’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 150 538

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2016 in Case R 229/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision on the grounds that Article 8(5) EUTMR was not applied;

— order EUIPO and Costruzione Macchine Speciali Srl (CMS) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 8(5), 76(1) and 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Rule 19(2) of Regulation No 2868/95;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/46

Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Biogena Naturprodukte v EUIPO (ZUM wohl)

(Case T-236/16)

(2016/C 243/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Biogena Naturprodukte GmbH & Co KG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: I. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word elements ‘ZUM wohl’ — Application No 13 666 871

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 1982/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare that the sign applied for under the number 013 666 871 be allowed to proceed to registration as an EU trade mark in respect of all the goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 32 and 43 for which registration is sought in the application of 23 January 2015;

— order EUIPO to pay all the costs which the applicant for the EU trade mark has incurred as a result of the application procedure;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/29

Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Brancheforening for Regulerkraft i Danmark v Commission

(Case T-203/16)

(2016/C 232/37)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Brancheforening for Regulerkraft i Danmark [Danish Regulating Power Association (BRD)] (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: N. Gade, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Declare that the Commission has infringed Article 265 TFEU, despite the requirement to act provided for in that article, in the manner in which it initiated the formal State aid investigation procedure: see Article 4(4) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and, contrary to the time limit laid down in Article 9(6), having failed to deliver a decision in State aid Case SA.32699 and SA.32184 on aid to electricity suppliers, which affects the market for regulating power.

— Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the Commission has infringed Article 265 TFEU by having initiated the formal State aid procedure only 29 months after the applicant’s complaint and by having failed to deliver a decision in the case even some 31 months after initiating that procedure.

The applicant further submits that the Commission has received all information that could possibly be necessary to complete the State aid procedure and that a period of 31 months must be deemed to be abundantly sufficient in which to cover the factual and relevant aspects of the case, not least since, prior to the aforementioned 29 months spent on the preliminary examination procedure, the Commission had a total of five years to investigate the case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/41

Appeal brought on 23 May 2016 by Sergio Spadafora against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 April 2016 in Case F-44/15, Spadafora v Commission

(Case T-250/16 P)

(2016/C 251/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Sergio Spadafora (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by G. Belotti)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the order under appeal;

— rule on the merits of the proceedings at first instance, upholding all the claims made by the appellant in that application, including the claim for damages which it is for this Court to quantify in a fair manner;

— order the Commission to pay the costs in both cases.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 April 2016, which dismissed, as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded, an action seeking essentially, first, the annulment of the decision of the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) not to consider further the appellant’s application for the position of head of the ‘Legal Advice’ unit and, second, the claim for the payment of damages by the European Commission stemming from, in the appellant’s opinion, loss of chance of being selected to occupy that post.

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging certain defects in the procedure before the Civil Service Tribunal, adversely affecting the appellant’s interests. — The appellant claims in particular, in that respect, that there are no arguments in the order under appeal relating to the alleged manifestly unfounded nature of the action.

2. Second plea in law, alleging substantial inaccuracy of the factual findings when viewed in the light of the documents in the case. — The appellant claims, in particular, in that respect, that the candidate selected for the post at issue lacked experience and the requirements of balanced geographical representation and equality of merits were incorrectly assessed.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of EU law, resulting from the failure to apply, during the pre-selection stage, the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of nationality and that of non-discrimination on the ground of language.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging the incorrect legal characterisation of the facts
—

as regards the proceedings at first instance, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal took the view that the state of proceedings permitted it to give final judgment, dismiss the action as unfounded and order the appellants to pay the costs;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/46

Action brought on 3 May 2016 — Keturi kambariai v EUIPO — Coffee In (coffee inn)

(Case T-202/16)

(2016/C 270/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: UAB Keturi kambariai (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Pumputienė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AS Coffee In (Tallinn, Estonia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark with the colour claim ‘black, orange, white’ containing the word elements ‘coffee inn’ — Application for registration No 11 475 233

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 in Case R 137/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and, consequently, reject the opposition and authorise the registration of the mark applied for;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs relating to the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;