ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 30 April 2021 — Praesidiad/EUIPO — Zaun (Post)

(Case T-231/21)

(2021/C 278/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Praesidiad Holding (Zwevegem, Belgium) (represented by: M. Rieger-Janson and D. Op de Beeck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design No 127 204-0001 (Post)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2021 in Case R 2068/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— maintain the decision of the Invalidity Division of EUIPO of 19 July 2019 rejecting the application for declaration of invalidity of the contested design;

— order EUIPO (and, if the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO intervenes, the other party as intervener) to pay the costs of the proceedings and pay those of the design holder.

Pleas in law

— The Board misapplied the judgment of DOCERAM in its interpretation of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 as it failed to properly identify the product;

— The Board misapplied the judgment of DOCERAM in its interpretation of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 as it failed to take into account evidence of objective circumstances indicative of considerations other than technical function;

— The Board misapplied the judgment of DOCERAM in its interpretation of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 as it failed to apply the objective circumstances test, instead indicating that subjective evidence of the design circumstances was required;

— The Board failed to give reasons, contrary to Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, as to why the evidence of the design holder was dismissed as irrelevant and/or unfounded;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 June 2021 — Scania CV v EUIPO (V8)

(Case T-327/21)

(2021/C 297/64)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Scania CV AB (Södertälje, Sweden) (represented by: C. Langenius, P. Sundin and S. Falkner)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU figurative mark V8 — Application for registration No 18 120 085

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2021 in Case R 1868/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— in accordance with Article 72 EUTMR, annul the contested decision and, amending EUIPO’s decision; grant Scania’s application for registration of the figurative mark for all the goods and services for which EUIPO refused registration;

— in accordance with Article 72 EUTMR, annul the contested decision and refer the matter back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal for a fresh decision;

— in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 3 June 2021 — SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-313/21)

(2021/C 289/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: SAS Cargo Group A/S (Kastrup, Denmark), Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden (Stockholm, Sweden), SAS AB (Stockholm) (represented by: B. Creve, M. Kofmann, J. Killick and G. Forwood, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Order the European Union, represented by the European Commission: (a) to pay to the applicants compensation in the sum of EUR 14 438 793,21 for the damage caused by the Commission’s failure to pay the correct interest amount on the reimbursed fine for the period between 15 February 2011 and 8 March 2016, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, in compliance with the judgment of 16 December 2015, SAS Cargo Group A/S and Others v Commission (Case T-56/11) or, failing that, a compensation amount for the time period and at the interest rate that the Court considers appropriate; (b) To pay to the applicants interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, plus 3.5 percentage points, on the compensation referred to in point (a) from 8 March 2016 until payment in full, with the interest being simple interest until 4 February 2021 and compound interest from 5 February 2021, or, failing that, to pay interest on the compensation referred to in point (a) for the time period, at the interest rate and according to the calculation method (simple or compound) that the Court considers appropriate.

— Annul the decision of the European Commission of 25 March 2021 rejecting the applicants’ application for compensation for non-contractual damages.

— Order the European Commission to pay its costs and those of the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for damages, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to pay the applicants the correct amount of interest following the annulment of the Commission’s Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case A.39258 — Airfreight).

In support of the action for annulment, the applicants rely on two pleas in law:

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in law by finding that the applicants’ claim for non-contractual liability under Article 340 TFEU was time-barred under Article 46 of the Statute.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, absence of a diligent assessment of all aspects of the case and violation of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, together with violation of Article 4 and 6.5 of the contract renewal procedure. — In this case, the defendant’s assessment is illegal, tainted by a manifest error of assessment and a violation of the duty of good administration, for two main reasons. Firstly, the applicant argues that the defendant did not take into due consideration the other criteria referred to in Article 4 of the procedure on contract renewal and, in particular, the applicant’s previous positive performance assessments. Secondly, the reasons given by the defendant with regard to the applicant’s performance in 2019 and 2020 are manifestly erroneous and unfounded.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 June 2021 — Wizz Air Hungary v Commission

(Case T-332/21)

(2021/C 310/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: E. Vahida, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 2 October 2020 on State aid SA.56810 (2020/N) — Romania — COVID-19: Aid to TAROM (1); and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed manifest errors of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment).

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.

(1) OJ 2021 C 94, p. 1.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 June 2021 — Future Motion v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (HYPERCORE)

(Case T-356/21)

(2021/C 329/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Future Motion, Inc. (Santa Cruz, California, United States) (represented by: F.-M. Orou, 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

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 mark HYPERCORE — International registration designating the European Union No 1 360 694

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2021 in Case R 1229/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs,

— in the alternative, if the other party before the Board of Appeal intervenes, order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 June 2021 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA)

(Case T-343/21)

(2021/C 329/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aruba SpA (Bibbiena, Italy)

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 ARUBA — European Union trade mark No 14 421 598

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 in Case R 259/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings;

— order Aruba S.p.A. to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.

Plea in law
Action brought on 14 July 2021 — Assaad v Council

(Case T-426/21)

(2021/C 338/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nizar Assaad (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister, G. Martin and C. Enderby Smith, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/751 of 6 May 2021 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/743 of 6 May 2021 (2), which amend entry 36 to Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and entry 36 to Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 (‘the Contested Measures’), in so far as they apply to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant alleges that the Council has repeatedly stated since 2011 that the applicant is not the person listed at entry 36 to the EU’s restrictive measures on Syria. By the Contested Measures, the Council has sought to reverse this position, and now, without any justification or factual or legal basis, contends that the applicant has in fact been listed since 2011. The applicant’s grounds for annulment challenge the Council’s volte face in the Contested Measures as being based on multiple errors of assessment; unlawfully retroactive and inimical to the principle of legal certainty; an abuse and misuse of the Council’s powers; and contrary to the principle of res judicata.

(1) OJ 2021, L 160, p. 115.

(2) OJ 2021, L 160, p. 1.
—

pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable: — Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; — Article 4(2) and Articles 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; — Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;
Action brought on 6 July 2021 — DZ Hyp v SRB

(Case T-395/21)

(2021/C 349/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DZ Hyp AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 10 pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-389/21, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 July 2021 — Hesse v EUIPO — Wedl & Hofmann (Testa Rossa)

(Case T-451/21)

(2021/C 368/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Mils/Hall in Tyrol, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Testa Rossa — Application for registration No 13 019 047

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2021 in Case R 878/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to the extent that the opposition should be dismissed also in respect of the following goods: Class 7 — Bread cutting machines; grating machines for vegetables; coffee grinders (other than hand-operated); electric blenders and kitchen grinders, electric; Class 21 — Household utensils;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 July 2021 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT)

(Case T-416/21)

(2021/C 357/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Save the Duck SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark ITINERANT — Application for registration No 17 946 859

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 May 2021 in Case R 997/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to grant European Union trade mark No 17 946 853 for Classes 18 and 25;

— order [EUIPO] to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Incorrect exclusion of the evidence submitted before the Board of Appeal;

— Misapplication of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision was supported by inadequate reasons and/or was disproportionate. The further applicant alleges that: — In the event that there was a legitimate interest (which the applicant disputes) in making a finding of infringement against the applicant, the Commission gave no adequate reasons for exercising its discretion to make that finding. — The exercise of the Commission’s discretion contravened the principle of proportionality because the Contested Decision was unnecessary to achieve the aim of the effective enforcement of competition law and the disadvantages to the applicant of a finding of infringement were disproportionate to that aim. If any or all of the first, second and/or third pleas in law is upheld, the applicant contends that the Contested Decision must be annulled in its entirety. To the extent necessary, however, the applicant advances a further plea in law.
Action brought on 11 August 2021 — Aquind and Others v ACER

(Case T-492/21)

(2021/C 391/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Aquind Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Aquind Energy Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Aquind SAS (Rouen, France) (represented by: S. Goldberg, L. Van den Hende, L. Malý and E. White, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s Board of Appeal decision of 4 June 2021; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s Board of Appeal erred in finding that the appeal before it was inadmissible. It is argued that the defendant remained competent to replace its annulled decision (1) with a new one and to grant the exemption to AQUIND Interconnector under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (2). Furthermore, it is alleged that the defendant’s Board of Appeal failed to fulfill its obligation to ensure full and complete compliance with the Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 (3).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s Board of Appeal infringed requirements in Articles 25(3) and 28(4) of Regulation (EU) No 2019/942 (4) and in the Rules of Procedure of the defendant’s Board of Appeal. It is argued that the defendant’s Board of Appeal did not follow the correct procedure with one of its members not attending the hearing, the oral proceedings not constituting evidence, and no deliberation meeting minutes having been published.

(1) Decision A-001-2018, of 17 October 2018, of the defendant’s Board of Appeal.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 15-35).

(3) Judgment of 18 November 2020, Aquind v ACER, T-735/18, EU:T:2020:542.

(4) Regulation (EU) 2019/942 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 establishing a European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2019 L 158, p. 22-53).
Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Foz v Council

(Case T-481/21)

(2021/C 412/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Samer Foz (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: L. Cloquet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision 2021/855 (CFSP) of the Council of the EU of 27 May 2021 amending Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the applicant;

— annul Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/848 of the Council of the EU of 27 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and

— order the Council to pay full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law. The applicant alleges that the Council made a manifest error in assessing the facts by considering that the applicant is supporting the Syrian regime and benefiting from it and by considering that the applicant is a leading businessperson operating in Syria.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/855 of 27 May 2021 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 90).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/848 of 27 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 18).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 August 2021 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2)

(Case T-461/21)

(2021/C 412/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MCO (IP) Holdings Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: A. Roughton, Barrister-at-law)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C8 (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark C2 — Application for registration No 17 867 689

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2021 in Case R 909/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and allow the mark (EUIPO application number 017867689) to proceed to registration;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs;

— order C8 to bear its own costs;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by MCO(IP) Holdings Limited.

Pleas in law

— misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect rejection of the sign’s registration;

— misapplication of the principle of interdependence leading to the incorrect dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Appeal;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 September 2021 — bett1.de v EUIPO — XXXLutz Marken (BODY STAR)

(Case T-537/21)

(2021/C 422/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: bett1.de GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Brexl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (Wels, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark BODY STAR — Application for registration No 18 023 614

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2021 in Joined Cases R 1711/2020-2 and R 1727/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law