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

Action brought on 9 October 2019 – Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO – Ornua (KERRYMAID)

(Case T-693/19)

(2019/C 413/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (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: Ornua Co-operative Ltd (Dublin, Ireland)

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 trade word mark KERRYMAID – Application for registration No 10 083 251

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 July 2019 in Case R 2473/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to the extent that the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision of 22 October 2013 of the Opposition Division in Case B 1 938 417 was dismissed;

— dismiss the opposition brought by Ornua Co-operative Ltd against the registration of the EU trade mark KERRYMAID, No. 10 083 251;

— order EUIPO and Ornua Co-operative Ltd, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that all of Title V of Regulation 2017/459, on which the contested decision is based, is invalid for lack of legislative competence. Regulation 2017/459, on which the contested decision is based, was adopted under the power of legislative harmonisation delegated by Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (2) On the basis of the powers delegated in Regulation No 715/2009, the Commission was competent only to create a network code, applied to the existing and incremental capacity of gas transmission systems, defining capacity-allocation mechanisms. On the other hand, Title V, which goes beyond the subject-matter that it should regulate, does not establish a regulatory framework for distribution of gas transmission capacity which is neutral from the point of view of competence, but regulates in detail questions concerning investments in respect of incremental capacity, going beyond the scope of the network code.
—

where necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the case, order the European Parliament to disclose the opinions given by the European Parliament Legal Service on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, although perhaps not on those exact dates, but in any event before the adoption of the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, 28.12.2018, p. 8);
13.

Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated procedurally because it is based on the ECB’s assessment and the ECB failed to take appropriate steps to eliminate the influence of officials with a conflict of interest.
8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that, in determining the amount of the aid to be recovered, losses, reliefs or exemptions which were available to the applicant (whether by way of claim, election, or automatically) at the time when it claimed the Group Financing Exemption, or which would have been available at that time had it not claimed the Group Financing Exemption, should be taken into account even if access to those losses, reliefs or exemptions is now time barred under UK law. The applicant argues that that is the correct interpretation of recital 203 of the contested decision but, insofar as that is not the case, the contested decision is incorrect because failing to take such losses, reliefs or exemptions into account would lead to over-calculation of the amount of the aid which would introduce a distortion into the internal market.
Official Journal of the European Union

Application lodged on 20 November 2019 — DTE Systems v EUIPO — Speed-Buster (PedalBox +)

(Case T-801/19)

(2020/C 27/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties to the proceedings

Applicant: DTE Systems GmbH (Recklinghausen, Germany) (represented by: U. Vietmeyer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Speed-Buster GmbH & Co. KG (Sinzig, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark PedalBox + — EU trade mark No 16 637 266

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 in Case R 1934/2018-1

Form of order sought

— Annul the decisions of the defendant’s Cancellation Division of 1 August 2018, No 16 223 C (invalidity) and of the defendant’s First Board of Appeal of 5 September 2019 in Case R 1934/2018-1;

— Maintain EU trade mark No 16 637 266 on the register in its entirety, as registered and certified by the defendant;

— In the alternative, in the event that the General Court considers that other findings of fact are necessary, order the defendant to adopt a new decision on the need to preserve the availability of the term ‘PedalBox +’, without taking into account product designations of the companies SPEED-BUSTER GmbH & Co. KG., Mosaikweg 18, 53489 Sinzig, Germany, or CPA Performance GmbH, Jurastrasse 1, 73119 Zell unter Aichelberg, Germany.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural safeguards of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the principle of non-discrimination. The applicant claims that the way in which the European Economic and Social Committee makes decisions with regard to the promotion and reclassification of members of the temporary staff working in the group secretariats and, in particular, in the Group I secretariat, undermines the procedural safeguards provided for by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That is particularly the case with regard to the decision not to promote or reclassify the applicant in 2019 and other financial years. First of all, that decision contains no statement of reasons. Next, no document, general decision, notification made to the applicant or, more generally, to members of the temporary staff in groups, or Group I, indicate what are the criteria which are relied on and implemented in order to choose which members of the temporary staff will be promoted or reclassified. According to the applicant, the lack of criteria, guarantees of fair treatment, information or statement of reasons is all the more contrary to the requirements of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in that some of the members of staff of the secretariats and, in particular, of the Group I secretariat experience very rapid career development while others, like the applicant, progress very slowly.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipement)

(Case T-841/19)

(2020/C 45/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. van Werven, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) and Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Tinnus Enterprises

Design at issue: European Union design No 1431 829-0008

Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 in Case R 1009/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to suspend the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal and decide that said proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall continue;

— to join the current case before the General Court with the cases before the General Court in cases R 1006/2018-3, R 1008/2018-3, R 1005/2018-3 and R 1010/2018-3 lodged by Koopman International simultaneous with this action;

— order Tinnus Enterprises to pay Koopman International’s costs and fees.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘legal certainty’;

— The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘economy of proceedings’;

— The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘sound administration’;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is inadequately reasoned, in that the reasoning of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament is ambiguous and does not indicate the extent to which the documents submitted did not constitute proof of work.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 December 2019 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA)

(Case T-830/19)

(2020/C 54/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bacardi & Co. Ltd (Meyrin, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA in light blue and dark blue — Application for registration No 12 946 034

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 in Case R 2532/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— join the proceedings on the applications against the decision of the defendant of 5 September 2019 in Cases R 2531/2018-2, R 2532/2018-2 and R 2533/2018-2;

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 December 2019 – Body Attack Sports Nutrition v EUIPO – Sakkari (SAKKATTACK)

(Case T-851/19)

(2020/C 61/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Labesius, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maria Sakkari (Nicosia, Cyprus)

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: Application for European Union figurative mark SAKKATTACK in the colours black, red, yellow, white and grey – Application for registration No 16 603 557

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2019 in Case R 2560/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the joinder of the present case with case T-788/19;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 37(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

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

Action brought on 17 December 2019 – AI and Others v ECDC

(Case T-864/19)

(2020/C 61/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: AI, HV, HW and HY (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the ECDC of 11 February 2019 rejecting their request for compensation of 11 October 2018;

— annul, if need be, the decision of 10 September 2019 rejecting their complaint of 10 May 2019;

— order compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicants;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants, having specified their individual factual situations, then set out their allegations of the fault committed by the defendant, the damage suffered, and the link between the fault and the damage.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 December 2019 — Impera v EUIPO — Euro Games Technology (Flaming Forties)

(Case T-874/19)

(2020/C 129/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Impera GmbH (Steinhaus, Austria) (represented by: C. Straberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Euro Games Technology Ltd (Vranya-Lozen-Triugulnika, Bulgaria)

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 Flaming Forties — Application for registration No 16 729 154

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2019 in Case R 2304/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— allow the applicant’s European Union trade mark application No 16 729 154 in its entirety or in the alternative, remit the proceedings to the Board of Appeal;

— order the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, if acting as intervener, to pay the applicant’s costs;

— order EUIPO, if the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO is not being allocated the costs, to pay the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for not carrying out an effective evaluation of comparative merits for all of the officials eligible for promotion. First, by carrying out a ‘general’ assessment of merits of the officials eligible for promotion, the Appointing Authority did not carry out the comparative evaluation on a basis of equality. Secondly, it applied the criterion of use of languages improperly.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 January 2020 — Paravan v EUIPO — paragon (Paragon)

(Case T-11/20)

(2020/C 68/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Paravan GmbH (Pfronstetten-Aichelau, Germany) (represented by: I. Jung and L. Delpy, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: paragon GmbH & Co. KGaA (Delbrück, 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: EU word mark Paragon — EU trade mark No 3 705 051

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2019 in Case R 28/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and uphold the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 10 December 2018 in cancellation proceedings No 14 618 C concerning EU trade mark Paragon No 3 705 051;

alternatively,

— amend the contested decision by annulling the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 10 December 2018 in cancellation proceedings No 14 618 C in so far as the EU trade mark Paragon No 3 705 051 was revoked, with effect from 14 March 2017, for ‘carriage body parts for the tuning of motor vehicles for locomotion by land; microphones for hands-free kits for cell phones for motor vehicles for locomotion by land; clocks for motor vehicles for locomotion by land’;

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

Pleas in law

— infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations by the decision refusing to admit the applicant to the internal competition due to the lack of minimum grade. — The applicant alleges that the minimum grade is not the real indicator of the competencies. As a result, the requirement of a minimum grade prevents the recruitment of experienced and qualified candidates.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 January 2020 — West End Drinks v EUIPO — Pernod Ricard (The King of SOHO)

(Case T-31/20)

(2020/C 87/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: West End Drinks Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Hawkes, Solicitor and C. Hall, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pernod Ricard SA (Paris, France)

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 The King of SOHO in the colours golden, dark yellow, light yellow and cream — Application for registration No 11 539 103

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 October 2019 in Case R 1543/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 42(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 February 2020 — Metamorfoza v EUIPO — Tiesios kreivės (MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS)

(Case T-70/20)

(2020/C 103/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Metamorfoza d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: A. Bijelić, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tiesios kreivės (Vilnius, Lithuania)

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 MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS — Application for registration No 17 263 336

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2019 in Case R 663/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— to review the case and annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging a substantive error, a manifest error of assessment, a breach of the general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (the ‘Staff Regulations’) and procedural defects. The applicant submits that there is no provision anywhere in the Staff Regulations that a disciplinary decision downgrading an official automatically takes precedence over a subsequent promotion decision where the addressee of both decisions is the same official and that promotion is, by its very nature, a legal measure to which no prior or subsequent condition may be attached and which may not be limited in time. The Commission should therefore have considered, when reconstructing the applicant’s career, that he had been classified in grade AD 10 since 1 January 2010. In addition, the applicant submits that, following the General Court’s annulment of the decision to remove him from post, and for the purposes of reinstating him and reconstructing his career, the Commission was also under an obligation to reopen the promotion procedure at the stage at which it had been suspended pursuant to the general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. Lastly, according to the applicant, for the purposes of reconstructing his career in a fair and rigorous manner and in good faith, the Commission was bound, pursuant to the principle of good administration, to analyse in detail all the relevant information making it possible to reach a reasoned decision with regard to the grade in which he should have been reinstated. Not only did the Commission fail to do that, but it did not even hear the applicant before taking its decision.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission acted in breach of Articles 3(1)(a), 3(1)(a)(i), 3(2) and 7(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘basic Regulation’) and committed manifest errors of assessment by considering that payments received from the Oil Palm Plantation Fund constituted a countervailable subsidy and by failing to adjust the benefit allegedly received by the applicants for the discounts, as well as transportation and credit costs that were incurred to obtain the alleged subsidies.
Action brought on 30 January 2020 — IMI 2 Joint Undertaking v CHS

(Case T-53/20)

(2020/C 114/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: IMI 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, A. Duron and F. Federici, lawyers)

Defendant: Choice Healthcare Solutions Ltd (Cardiff, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant EUR 128 996,04, plus interest, in relation to Grant Agreement 115011 regarding the project ‘PROactive — Physical Activity as a Crucial Patient Reported Outcome in COPD’, subject to interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations plus 3,5 % as of 23 July 2019, until the date of receipt of the funds to be reimbursed to the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant concluded a grant agreement with the defendant regarding the project ‘PROactive — Physical Activity as a Crucial Patient Reported Outcome in COPD’.

In support of its application brought on the basis of Article 272 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the applicant relies on breaches of the conditions of the said grant agreement by the defendant with regard to the costs claimed by it.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Amisi Kumba v Council

(Case T-106/20)

(2020/C 129/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gabriel Amisi Kumba (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf 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) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 2 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 2 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) [No 1183/2005] 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-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.