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

Action brought on 29 September 2020 — Roller v EUIPO — Flex Equipos de Descanso (Dormillo)

(Case T-597/20)

(2020/C 390/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roller GmbH & Co. KG (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: W. Zürbig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA (Getafe, Spain)

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 Dormillo — International registration designating the European Union No 1 407 881

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2020 in Case R 2847/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition of the opponent as far as protection of international registration No 1 407 881 is refused for the European Union for all the contested goods and services of classes 20, 24 and 35;

— grant protection for the contested international registration Dormillo No 1 407 881 for all contested designated goods and services for the territory of the European Union;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. The liberalization of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. The European Commission ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to such pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of the Netherlands by authorising the Netherlands to reserve aid to KLM. Article 107(3)(b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Standardkessel Baumgarte Holding v EUIPO (Standardkessel)

(Case T-617/20)

(2020/C 414/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Standardkessel Baumgarte Holding GmbH (Duisburg, Germany), (represented by J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark ‘Standardkessel’ — Application for registration No 18 017 986

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2020 in Case R 2665/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VYBRANCE)

(Case T-635/20)

(2020/C 443/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Company SARL (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France)

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 word mark JUVÉDERM VYBRANCE –European Union trade mark No 13 541 594

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 August 2020 in Case R 1014/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— ask EUIPO to deem the appeal filed;

— order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant before the General Court.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging, firstly, an infringement of the principle according to which the members of the Selection Board shall have the necessary abilities to make an objective assessment of the performance and professional qualifications of the candidate during the field-related interview, secondly, a breach of the principle of equal treatment, and finally, a breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 November 2020 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (Triple helicoid cheese)

(Case T-662/20)

(2021/C 9/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Muratbey Gida Sanayí Ve Tícaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: M. J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the design No DM/080641-0002 (Triple helicoid cheese in colour yellow)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 August 2020 in Case R 1925/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and dismiss the application of the other party before the Board of Appeal for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the contested international registration No DM/080641-0002 designating the European Union;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
1.

First plea in law, concerning the fact that the first notification was addressed to the applicant only through the decision dismissing his appeal and alleging: — that the notification of 4 November 2019 had no effect or, at least, no retroactive effect; — failure to implement the formal pre-litigation procedure and infringement of Article 21 of that contract in so far as the applicant was not heard by the Deputy Head of Mission before a decision was adopted concerning the rejection of his internal appeal.
Action brought on 12 November 2020 — Leonardo v Frontex

(Case T-675/20)

(2021/C 19/67)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Leonardo SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Esposito, F. Caccioppoli and G. Calamo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should, as regards the substance:

— order the examination of the documents concerned by the access request and make a related order for exhibition or filing;

— annul the contested decision;

— consequently, order FRONTEX to exhibit, without further delay, the documents concerned by that access request;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against the rejection of the request for access to the documents relating to Tendering Procedure No FRONTEX/OP/888/2019/JL/CG, which is the subject of the proceedings currently before the General Court of the European Union in Case T-849/19 (including the award decision, the minutes of the award committee, the documents presented by the successful bidder and all the other documents in the administrative file).

In support of its action, the applicant alleges infringement of: Article 4(1)(b), the first indent of Article 4(2), and Article 4(3) 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); of Directives 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1) and 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65), more specifically, Articles 28 and 21 thereof, respectively; of Article 161 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1); of Management Board Decision No 19 of 23 July 2019; and of Article 89 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/715 of 18 December 2018 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies set up under the TFEU and Euratom Treaty and referred to in Article 70 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2019 L 122, p. 1).

In the alternative, the applicant criticises FRONTEX for failing to grant it even partial access to the documents.
—

annul the decision of the Chief Executive of EDA by which the complaint of the applicant against the EDA decision of 13 December 2019 was rejected, to the extent it offers an additional reasoning; and
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1st December 2020 — Skyworks Solutions v EUIPO — Sky (Sky5)

(Case T-707/20)

(2021/C 28/94)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Muir Wood, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Sky5 — Application for registration No 17 837 221

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2020 in Case R 229/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the objections to registration of the contested mark in their entirety;

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

Pleas in law

— The Board f of Appeal failed to consider the appeal properly or at all;

— The Board of Appeal was wrong to conclude that a likelihood of confusion would arise in respect of the class 40 services;

— The Board of Appeal breached the rules of natural justice by reaching its decision on bases other than those argued before it;

— The Board of Appeal was wrong to conclude that the Licence demonstrated that the Opponent was entitled to bring oppositions in reliance on the European Union trade mark;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 December 2020 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Frito-Lay Trading Company (MONSTER)

(Case T-758/20)

(2021/C 53/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Co. (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frito-Lay Trading Company GmbH (Bern, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark MONSTER — European Union trade mark No 9 492 158

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2020 in Case R 2927/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 22 October 2019 to the extent that it revoked the Registration for goods in Class 30;

— dismiss the application for revocation of the Registration for goods in Class 30;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs of the proceedings and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the TFEU and the legal rules governing the application of the Treaty, and the absence of dumping with regard to the criteria set out in the basic regulation, infringement of the articles of the basic regulation relating to the determination of dumping margins (Article 2, paragraph 6a in particular), incorrect identification of the ‘normal’ price of the goods under investigation, application of provisional duties not on account of the (unestablished) liability of the exporters but in reaction to the overall structure of the Chinese economy, misuse of powers, and failure to investigate and to state reasons. — The applicants allege unlawfulness in that regard stemming from the fact that the Commission conducted an investigation that was incomplete and in any event led to an uncertain outcome; that outcome was also vitiated by the unlawfulness deriving from the regulation on the registration of goods, which is already the subject of an action before the Court, in so far as the Commission included goods codes (7610 90 90) in the investigation which, by its own admission, should not have been included as they relate to goods that are different to those subject to investigation. Such an error (having permitted the inclusion of different goods) eliminates both the dumping conditions (in so far as the very low relative price inevitably and artificially reduces the average price) and injury to the Union industry, as the quantities involved are considerable in respect of the total volume of the goods, such as to render irrelevant the impact of the remaining part of the product imported into the European Union. — In the second place, the applicants submit that the absence of a specific determination of their situation is incompatible with the Treaty (and the rules cited) in so far as it establishes a regime of strict or vicarious liability, which runs counter to the fundamental principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations (judgments of the Court of Justice of 3 December 1998, Belgocodex (C-381/97) and of 26 April 2005, ‘Goed Wonen’ (C-376/02) by reason of market price and cost structure, manifestly of the market, produced by the applicants on several occasions to — and completely ignored by — the Commission (as the positions expressed on the market economy by the Chinese Government were similarly ignored). This led to manifest unlawfulness, both as regards the substance (relating to the concepts of normal value, significant distortion, access to credit, tax regime, insolvency regime, representative countries and choice of those countries) and as regards procedure, set out at length in the present plea, resulting in a clear and detrimental discriminatory effect.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 December 2020 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Frito-Lay Trading Company (MONSTER ENERGY)

(Case T-759/20)

(2021/C 53/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Co. (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frito-Lay Trading Company GmbH (Bern, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark MONSTER ENERGY — European Union trade mark No 9 500 448

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2020 in Case R 2928/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 23 October 2019 to the extent that it revoked the Registration for goods in Class 30;

— dismiss the application for revocation of the Registration for goods in Class 30;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs of the proceedings and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law
—

award damages according to Articles 256, 268 and 340 TFEU corresponding to the loss of the chance to secure the contracts or to the loss of income corresponding to the profit that the applicant would have made if it had performed the contracts and to the compensation corresponding to the non-material damages;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 December 2020 — PrenzMarien v EUIPO — Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) (STONES)

(Case T-766/20)

(2021/C 62/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PrenzMarien GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Ltd (Burton Upon Trent, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark STONES — European Union trade mark No 8 810 707

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2020 in Case R 274/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and revoke the contested European Union trade mark in its entirety;

— make an award of costs in favour of the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied its Temporary Framework by finding that the loan to Brussels Airlines complied with the Temporary Framework and that Brussels Airlines is eligible to recapitalisation aid, by failing to assess whether there were other more appropriate and less distortive measures available besides the recapitalisation, finding that the amount of recapitalisation was proportionate, and failing to impose an effective ban on aggressive expansion by Brussels Airlines.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 January 2021 — Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ v EUIPO — Bog-Fran (Furniture)

(Case T-1/21)

(2021/C 62/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A. (Ostrów Mazowiecka, Poland) (represented by: H. Basiński, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bog-Fran sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Warsaw, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: registered Community design No 1 384 002-0034

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2020 in Case R 595/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and remit the appeal back to the EUIPO;

— order EUIPO and the other party to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court and to reimburse applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 February 2021 — ultra air v EUIPO — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international)

(Case T-67/21)

(2021/C 88/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: ultra air GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (Haan, 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 word mark ‘ultrafilter international’ — European Union trade mark No 1 121 839

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2020 in Case R 271/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 January 2021– Cepewa v EUIPO — Out of the blue (Lieblingsmensch)

(Case T-48/21)

(2021/C 88/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cepewa GmbH (Karben, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, 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 figurative mark Lieblingsmensch — EU trade mark No 16 581 332

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2020 in Case R 917/2020-2

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 59(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (d) of Regulation No (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Ramazani Shadary v Council

(Case T-119/21)

(2021/C 128/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 10 in the annex to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/21, Boshab v Council.
—

annul the individual decisions of 30 March 2020 not to grant them an exception from the condition of nationality laid down in Article 12(2)(a) of the CEOS and, consequently, to terminate their respective contracts on the basis of Article 47 of the CEOS with notice to take effect ‘following the expiry of the Transition Period’, namely on 31 December 2020 according to the Withdrawal Agreement;