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

Action brought on 5 December 2018 — Boyer v EUIPO — Philicon 97 (PHILIBON DEPUIS 1957 www.philibon.com)

(Case T-718/18)

(2019/C 54/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Boyer (Moissac, France) (represented by: E. Junca, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Philicon 97 AD (Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark in colours blue, yellow and white — European Union trade mark No 12 501 466

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2018 in Case R 374/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 21 December 2017;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
First plea in law, alleging a wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU;

In the context of the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law during its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.

In addition, during the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 December 2018 — Runnebaum Invest v EUIPO — Berg Toys Beheer (Bergsteiger)

(Case T-736/18)

(2019/C 65/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Runnebaum Invest GmbH (Diepholz, Germany) (represented by: W. Prinz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Berg Toys Beheer BV (Ede, Netherlands)

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 Bergsteiger — Application for registration No 15 145 791

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 October 2018 in Case R 572/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 December 2018 — Brand IP Licensing v EUIPO — Facebook (lovebook)

(Case T-728/18)

(2019/C 54/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Brand IP Licensing Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: J. MacKenzie, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Facebook, Inc. (Menlo Park, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark lovebook — Application for registration No 9 926 577

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2018 in Case R 2279/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— set aside in its entirety the decision of the Opposition Division of 24 August 2017;

— dismiss the opposition;

— award the costs in favour of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law: general infringement of the obligation to state reasons — In the context of the first plea in law, the applicant submits that his request concerning (i) the transfer of an administrative act by which the defendant applied Decision (EU) 2015/1889 (1) to the applicant and (ii) the statement of the reasons on which that administrative act is based together with an explanation as to why a significant part of the assets of the pension fund was distributed to the Member States, was implicitly rejected. — In that regard, it is claimed that the defendant failed to fulfil its duties in accordance with the principles of good European administrative practice and in accordance with Article 296 TFEU. The applicant also has an interest in bringing proceedings because only a reasoned decision on his rights to the Europol Pension Fund would enable him to assess the lawfulness of the allocation and the implementation of any further claims.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 December 2018 — Tecnodidattica SpA v EUIPO (Base for lamps)

(Case T-752/18)

(2019/C 72/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tecnodidattica SpA (San Colombano Certenoli, Italy) (represented by: S. Corona and F. Corona, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of a base for lamps) — Application for registration No 14 997 308

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 October 2018 in Case R 76/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2 and 8 of the Regulation: manifest error of assessment and shortcomings in the Commission’s investigation in that the Commission considered that the entry of a new Mobile Network Operator (MNO) was in itself sufficient to resolve the horizontal effects of the merger, without considering the factors that had brought about the success of H3G. — In that regard, the applicant alleges a manifest error of assessment and shortcomings in the Commission’s investigation in that the Commission considered that the entry of a new MNO was in itself sufficient to resolve the horizontal effects of the merger, without considering the factors that had brought about the success of the entry of H3G. In Case M.7758, the Commission had already, in particular, not concerned itself with verifying whether the new MNO had (whether on the retail market or on the wholesale market) operating capacity, economic conditions and incentives at its disposal that were at least equivalent, as a whole, to those of H3G, which in its early years operated within a rapidly-expanding market. In addition, the Commission should have taken into consideration the effect produced on competitive dynamics by the one-sidedness of the termination rate available to H3G, which gave it a significant advantage with respect to other MNOs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB

(Case T-27/19)

(2019/C 72/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta’Xbiex, Malta) and Pilatus Holding ltd. (Ta’Xbiex) (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the ECB’s decisions dated 2 November 2018 and send to Pilatus Bank plc. on 5 November 2018 regarding the withdrawal of the banking license of Pilatus Bank;

— order the Defendant to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the ECB has failed to assume its responsibilities pursuant to Art. 14(5) of the SSM Regulation. (1)

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB erroneously assumed a legal ground for a license withdrawal.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to consider appropriately the discretionary nature of the decision.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to assess the relevant facts and failed to do so impartially and objectively.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditur principle.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB erred in law with respect to its considerations in connection with the presumption of innocence.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principal of equal treatment and acted in a discriminatory manner.

9. Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Art. 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir.

10. Tenth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the Applicants’ right of defence and their right to be heard.

11. Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to provide an adequately reasoned decision.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions.
Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Irish Wind Farmers’ Association and Others v Commission

(Case T-6/19)

(2019/C 93/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg (Kilkenny, Ireland), Carrons Windfarm Ltd (Shanagolden, Ireland), Foyle Windfarm Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) and Greenoge Windfarm Ltd (Bunclody, Ireland) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the letter of the European Commission dated 25 October 2018 regarding case SA.44671 Ireland — Alleged illegal State aid granted to the fossil fuel sector in the form of reduced property tax rates;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, namely that the Commission failed to open the formal investigation under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation 2015/1589, (1) notwithstanding doubts as to the existence of State aid, thereby depriving the applicants of their procedural rights. This plea comprises two branches:

1. First branch: the Commission should have adopted a formal decision. The Commission has not conducted a proper examination of the complaint as required under its own rules and the contested act has been adopted in contravention of the provisions of Regulation 2015/1589.

2. Second branch: the Commission should have had serious doubts as to the classification of the measure as aid and accordingly opened the formal investigation under Article 4(4) of Regulation 2015/1589, in particular and inter alia as the Commission misunderstood the scope of the complaint, failed to adequately examine all the information provided by the complainant in the context of the complaint, did not properly examine the measure, and followed the wrong approach regarding the assessment of selectivity and did not examine the other requirements laid down in Article 107 TFEU.

(1) Council Regulation 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 (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 January 2019 — Limango v EUIPO — Consolidated Artists (limango)

(Case T-23/19)

(2019/C 93/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Limango GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Hauss-Löhde, and M. Mette, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consolidated Artists BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands)

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 limango — Application for registration No 6 943 096

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2018 in related Cases R 1844/2017-1 and R 2093/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision;

— dismiss the opposition in its entirety;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 January 2019 — Orkla Foods Danmark v EUIPO (PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD)

(Case T-34/19)

(2019/C 112/50)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Orkla Foods Danmark (Taastrup, Denmark) (represented by: S. Hansen, 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 ‘PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD’ — Application for registration No 16 930 241

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2018 (Case R 309/2018-2)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 8 January 2019 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-13/19)

(2019/C 103/63)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and O. Serdula, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— rule that the European Commission has breached its obligations under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by failing, in connection with the conditional provision of traditional own resources of CZK 40 482 255 by the Czech Republic, to bring proceedings against the Czech Republic for failure to fulfil obligations in this connection or to return the sum at issue, and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

The Czech Republic is of the opinion that the obligation upon the European Commission to take the abovementioned action follows from the principle of sincere cooperation provided for in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with the right to effective judicial protection laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Having regard to the fact that, according to case-law of the Court of Justice, (1) only the Court of Justice may authoritatively settle, in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations, a dispute between a Member State and the European Commission in the area of traditional own resources, the European Commission must, in connection with the execution of the conditional payment in question, bring such proceedings without undue delay or return that payment if it finds no grounds upon which to bring such proceedings.

The Czech Republic paid the sum at issue into the European Commission’s account as far back as 2015. However, the European Commission has not brought proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations in that case and has not returned the sum in question conditionally paid to it, even though the Czech Republic has formally called upon it to do so. The Czech Republic therefore submits that the conditions have been met for a finding that the Commission has failed to act.

(1) Compare judgment of 25 October 2017, Slovakia v Commission (C-593/15 P and C-594/15 P, EU:C:2017:800) and judgment of 25 October 2017, Romania v Commission (C-599/15 P, EU:C:207:801).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 February 2019 — Alcar Aktiebolag v EUIPO — Alcar Holding (alcar.se)

(Case T-77/19)

(2019/C 131/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alcar Aktiebolag (Bromma, Sweden) (represented by: M. Ateva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alcar Holding GmbH (Wien, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative word mark alcar.se in colours white and blue — Application for registration No 15 508 583

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2018 in Case R 378/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— stay the proceedings before the General Court until the revocation proceedings against the trade mark of Alcar Holding GmbH have been concluded, and the real scope of protection of the trade mark of Alcar Holding GmbH has been determined;

— annul the decision of the Board Appeal in its entirety;

— uphold the Opposition Division’s decision in its entirety;

— order Alcar Holding GmbH to pay the Applicant’s costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, the Board of Appeal, as well as the General Court.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal erroneously extended the scope of protection of the trade mark of Alcar Holding GmbH;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 February 2019 — Gwo Chyang Biotech v EUIPO — Norma (KinGirls)

(Case T-85/19)

(2019/C 122/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Gwo Chyang Biotech Co. Ltd (Tainan, Taiwan) (represented by: J. Kakoures, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: Applicant

Mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark KinGirls — Application for registration No 15 151 038

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2018 in Case R 718/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it upheld the opposition in respect of goods in Class 3 and reject the opposition in its entirety;

— order EUIPO and Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG to pay the costs of the opposition, appeal and present proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (We IntelliGence the World)

(Case T-84/19)

(2019/C 139/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (We IntelliGence the World) — Application for registration No 15 225 246

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1062/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (moneyassistant)

(Case T-94/19)

(2019/C 139/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark moneyassistant — Application for registration No 15 225 105

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1054/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Ruhorimbere v Council

(Case T-121/19)

(2019/C 139/101)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Éric Ruhorimbere (Mbuji-Mayi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 12 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 12 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.