ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/53

Action brought on 5 March 2018 — Sona Nutrition v EUIPO — Solgar Holdings (SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA)

(Case T-152/18)

(2018/C 152/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sona Nutrition Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Solgar Holdings, Inc. (Ronkonkoma, New York, United States)

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 in colours purple, light brown, beige, dark brown and golden brown, SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA — Application for registration No 13 781 331

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2017 in Case R 1319/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Solgar Holdings, Inc., if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 15 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 15 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/70

Action brought on 9 March 2018 — Multifit Tiernahrungs v EUIPO (TAKE CARE)

(Case T-181/18)

(2018/C 161/87)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘TAKE CARE’ — Application for registration No 16 254 898

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2018 in Case R 845/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 14 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 14 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that there is no legal basis for reimbursement of the salary paid to the accredited parliamentary assistants. This plea has two limbs: The first limb of the fourth plea alleges that there is no legal relationship between the applicant and the European Parliament. Since the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 160/2009, it is the European Parliament, and not the MEP, which has a legal relationship with the accredited parliamentary assistant and the European Parliament does not reimburse expenses, but pays a salary. As regards the employment relationship of accredited parliamentary assistants, the applicant has no contractual relationship with the European Parliament. The European Parliament did not pay the applicant the relevant salary for the accredited parliamentary assistant. In the absence of any legal relationship or any basis in law, the applicant cannot be under any obligation to reimburse the European Parliament. The second limb of the fourth plea in law alleges that activity outside the accredited parliamentary assistants’ work does not give rise to any right to the repayment of the salary paid. Article 12 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union does not prohibit the exercise of an activity outside the service, but requires only that the relevant consent be obtained from the appointing authority. On the other hand, where consent is not requested, the rules do not lay down penalties in the form of full reimbursement of the salary paid.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/36

Action brought on 1 March 2018 — APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others

(Case T-147/18)

(2018/C 166/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: APG Intercon Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 147 others (represented by: A. Markides, K. Scordis, A. Gavrielides, C. Velaris, C. Velaris, lawyers, A. Robertson QC (Queen’s Counsel) and G. Rothschild, Barrister)

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

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

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

or in the alternative:

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

and in any event:

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging breach of the fundamental principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination: — there was unlawful discrimination between creditors of Laiki Bank and/or between creditors of Bank of Cyprus as a result of measures adopted by European Union institutions; — the said breaches were sufficiently serious in that the institutions manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on their discretion; and — there is a direct causal link between the breaches and the damage sustained by the applicants.
—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concern the Applicant; and
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure. The applicant alleges that there is evidence of serious difficulties relating to the length and the circumstances of the preliminary investigation procedure.
Case T-264/18: Action brought on 27 April 2018 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (mo.da)

Action brought on 27 April 2018 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (mo.da)

(Case T-264/18)

Parties

Applicant: Gruppo Armonie SpA (Casalgrande, Italy) (represented by: G. Medri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element mo.da — Application for registration No 16 430 035

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2018 in Case R 2065/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment vitiating the contested decision, in that, firstly, the Appointing Authority took account of damage to the integrity of the institutions caused by the applicant which had already been remedied and, secondly, the duration of the disciplinary penalty imposed is arbitrary as it has been set by reference to the legal retirement age of the applicant.
2.

Second plea in law, raising a plea of illegality, in that Article 10(c) of the Conditions of Employment and Article 2.0 of the Staff Rules infringe Council Directive [1999]/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP and recital 6 of the ETUC, UNICE and CEEP framework agreement on fixed-term work.
Case T-276/18: Action brought on 27 April 2018 — Julius-K9 v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (K9 UNIT)

Action brought on 27 April 2018 — Julius-K9 v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (K9 UNIT)

(Case T-276/18)

Parties

Applicant: Julius-K9 Zrt (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary) (represented by: G. Jambrik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark K9 UNIT — Application for registration No 14 590 831

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2018 in Case R 1432/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

The applicants allege that the defendant made manifest errors of assessment in adopting the contested decision, including its finding that there was no allegation of misuse of aid by the applicants whereas such an allegation was expressly made in paragraph 5.25 of the complaint. The applicants also allege that the defendant’s assessment of NAMA’s activities was deficient in various ways.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers and infringement of Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on the part of the ECB, in so far as it used its powers in matters of monetary policy in order to impose the terms of bank restructuring on the Eurogroup and the Government of Cyprus.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the ECB’s assessment of the ‘failing or likely to fail’ criterion’ in respect of ABLV Bank and its subsidiary ABLV Bank Luxembourg was erroneous and deficient in a number of regards.
Case T-328/18: Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Gas Natural v Commission

Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Gas Natural v Commission

(Case T-328/18)

Parties

Applicant: Gas Natural SDG, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Declare admissible and well founded the grounds of annulment set out in this action.

— In accordance with Article 263 TFEU, annul the Commission Decision of 27 November 2017 in file SA.47912 (2017/NN) opening the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU relating to the environmental investment incentive granted by the Kingdom of Spain to coal-fired power stations.

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in this case opened the formal investigation procedure, provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU, relating to the environmental investment incentive granted by the Kingdom of Spain to coal-fired power stations.

According to the applicant, it is apparent from the contested decision that the Commission harbours doubts as to whether the emission limit values imposed on plants that receive that environmental investment incentive are simply aimed at applying the protection levels required by EU law and, in particular, by Directive 2001/80/EC, which applies to coal-fired power stations. If that were the case, the environmental investment incentive would not provide any incentive at all. Furthermore, the environmental investment incentive would be contrary to the principle of EU law regarding State aid, according to which Member States cannot grant public aid to undertakings so that the latter can comply with binding EU laws.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons as regards the selective nature of the measure. — In that regard, it is submitted that the Commission provides no information that explains in a clear and unequivocal manner why the measure under investigation is selective in nature, for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU. In particular, the Commission fails to explain whether the coal-fired power stations are in a comparable factual and legal situation with the rest of the power stations and, if that is the case, whether the incentive in this case can favour ‘certain undertakings or productions’, for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, in relation to other undertakings which are in a comparable factual and legal situation, in light of the objective pursued by the measure in question.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was an act adopted in breach of Article 155(2) TFEU. The Commission lacked power to refuse to propose that the Council implement the Agreement by Council decision, in the absence of any objection either to the representative status of the parties to the Agreement, or to the legality of the Agreement. — The applicants argue that the Commission’s decision not to propose to the Council that the Agreement be implemented by Council decision is in breach of Article 155(2) TFEU, and contrary to the requirement for respect for the autonomy of the social partners, as enshrined in Article 152 TFEU. — The applicants also argue that the Commission was under a duty to make a proposal to the Council, unless it produced a reasoned basis for finding that the social partners who were party to the Agreement were not sufficiently representative, or the agreement was not lawful. — The applicants further maintain that the Commission entered into an assessment of the appropriateness of the Agreement, which does not fall within its powers.
Case T-361/18: Action brought on 8 June 2018 — APEDA v EUIPO — Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office (SIR BASMATI RICE)

Action brought on 8 June 2018 — APEDA v EUIPO — Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office (SIR BASMATI RICE)

(Case T-361/18)

Parties

Applicant: Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) (New Delhi, India) (represented by: N. Dontas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Burraq Travel & Tours General Tourism Office SA (Athens, Greece)

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: EU figurative mark SIR BASMATI RICE — EU trade mark No 13 102 454

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2018 in Case R 90/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, except insofar as it concerns ‘sago’ and ‘artificial rice [uncooked]’ covered by the contested EUTM in Class 30;

— declare the European Union Trade Mark invalid in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the General Court, the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on the absolute ground of invalidity/refusal regarding deceptiveness;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on the absolute ground of invalidity regarding filing of an EUTM in bad faith;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on the absolute ground of invalidity/refusal regarding descriptiveness;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging errors of law regarding the qualification as a single and continuous infringement, and assumption of the applicant’s liability for participation The second plea concerns alleged errors made by the Commission both as regards the qualification of the contacts identified as a single and continuous infringement and as regards the applicant’s liability for such infringement. First, the Commission would have failed to establish to the requisite legal standard the scope of a single and continuous infringement. Secondly, the Commission would have erred in holding the applicant liable for contacts which it did not participate in. Thirdly, the Commission would have erroneously concluded that the infringement continued without interruption before 7 November 2003. Fourthly, the Commission would have erred in holding the applicant liable for continued participation in a single and continuous infringement after 10 November 2008. As a consequence, the Commission would be time-barred from imposing penalties on the applicant. Fifthly, the Commission would have erroneously considered that the applicant’s participation in a single and continuous infringement continued in spite of its explicit distancing.
Case T-398/18: Action brought on 25 June 2018 — Pielczyk v EUIPO — Thalgo TCH (DERMAEPIL SUGAR EPIL SYSTEM)

Action brought on 25 June 2018 — Pielczyk v EUIPO — Thalgo TCH (DERMAEPIL SUGAR EPIL SYSTEM)

(Case T-398/18)

Parties

Applicant: Radoslaw Pielczyk (Klijndijk, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Kielar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thalgo TCH (Roquebrune-sur-Argens, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union trade mark No 11 649 324

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2018 in Joined Cases R 979/2017-4 and R 1070/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in part, namely in so far as the Board of Appeal a) dismissed the Applicant’s appeal R 979/2017-4 b) partially allowed the cancellation Thalgo TCH’s appeal R 1070/2017-4 for the goods in Class 3 of the Nice Classification; c) declared the EUTM No 11 649 324 also invalid for the indicated goods in Class 3; d) upheld EUIPO’s decision of 21/03/2017 (Cancellation proceedings No 11 974 C) in part in which pursuant to the decision the Applicant’s trade mark has been declared invalid for goods in Class 3;

— order Thalgo TCH to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the cancellation Division of the EUIPO and the Board of Appeal;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in connection with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Rule 22(3)(4) in connection with Rule 40(6) of the Commission Regulation (Ec) No 2868/95;
—

annul the Single Resolution Board’s decision of 12 April 2018 concerning the calculation of the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2018 (SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03), including the Annex thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including the Annex thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;
Case T-404/18: Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Zhadanov v EUIPO (PDF Expert)

Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Zhadanov v EUIPO (PDF Expert)

(Case T-404/18)

Parties

Applicant: Igor Zhadanov (Odessa, Ukraine) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark PDF Expert — Application for registration No 16 257 735

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2018 in Case R 1813/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— register European Union trade mark application No 16 257 735 for ‘Computer application software for personal computers, mobile phones and portable electronic devices, namely, software for viewing, editing and managing pdf documents’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal erred in not recognizing the special nature of the applied for goods;
Action brought on 3 July 2018 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

(Case T-408/18)

(2018/C 319/22)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: S. Paliou, lawyer)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare that the defendant’s demand, set out in debit note No 3241804913 of 16 April 2018, that the applicant repay part of the subsidy which it received for the ENHSA action is unfounded in respect of the sum of EUR 77 169,78 and declare that that sum corresponds to eligible expenditure;

— declare that the defendant’s demand, set out in debit note No 3241804682 of 9 April 2018, that the applicant repay part of the subsidy which it received for the ARCHI-MUNDUS action, amounting to EUR 28 976,83, is unfounded and declare that that sum corresponds to eligible expenditure;

— call upon the defendant to repay the foregoing sums with statutory interest; and

— order the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis contests the demand which the EACEA has formulated by debit note No 3241804913 of 16 April 2018 in the sum of EUR 84 955,12 relating to the ENHSA action. Also, Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis contests the demand which the EACEA has formulated by debit note No 3241804682 of 9 April 2018 in the sum of EUR 28 976,83 relating to the ARCHI-MUNDUS action.

Those demands were made after the EACEA carried out an on-site audit at the applicant’s premises, when the EACEA disputed the reality of the expenditure that related to flat-rate daily allowances in connection with conferences that were held within the framework of the ENHSA and ARCHI-MUNDUS actions.

In that context, the applicant asks the General Court of the European Union to declare that the flat-rate daily allowance (per diem) for the non-Greek-speaking participants at the conferences under the two actions corresponds to eligible expenditure.

Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis maintains that the expenditure contested by the EACEA is eligible. That is confirmed by the material which the applicant submitted to the EACEA during the on-site audit and by means of subsequent correspondence.