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

Action brought on 3 December 2020 — Puma v EUIPO — CMS (CMS Italy)

(Case T-711/20)

(2021/C 35/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. GonzálezBueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA (Alonte, Italy)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element CMS Italy — International registration designating the European Union No 1 150 538

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2020 in Case R 2215/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and CMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

Third plea in law: Breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — The right to private and family life and the right of the daughter, a minor, to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both her parents would be infringed, since the applicant’s family would have to live separately, the daughter would remain in Berlin with the father and the applicant would move to Luxembourg alone. — The right to equality before the law and non-discrimination would be infringed. The applicant, as a married EPLO (European Parliament Liaison Office) official and mother of a minor daughter, of whom she shares custody with her husband, is subject to mobility, on the basis of which she is to be transferred to Luxembourg. Separated and divorced officials of an EPLO with shared custody of a minor child remain exempt from mobility until the child has reached the age of majority, without there being any objective reason for this unequal treatment.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 December 2020 — Boquoi Handels v EUIPO (Representation of an ice crystal on a blue circular background)

(Case T-734/20)

(2021/C 53/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Boquoi Handels OHG (Grünwald, Germany) (represented by: S. Lorenz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of an ice crystal on a blue circular background) — Application for registration No 17 970 116

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2020 in Case R 522/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 December 2020 — Perry Street Software v EUIPO — Toolstream (SCRUFFS)

(Case T-720/20)

(2021/C 44/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Perry Street Software, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Hawkins, solicitor and T. Dolde, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark SCRUFFS — International registration designating the European Union No 1 171 590

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2020 in Case R 550/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party before the Board of Appeal (assuming it intervenes in the proceedings) to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Failure to carry out a full examination and distortion of facts and evidence pursuant to Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— 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;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 December 2020 — Standard International Management v EUIPO — Asia Standard Management Services (The Standard)

(Case T-768/20)

(2021/C 62/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Standard International Management LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, S. Wickenden, Barrister and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Asia Standard Management Services Ltd (Hong Kong, China)

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 The Standard — European Union trade mark No 8 405 243

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2020 in Case R 828/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay to the applicant the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application; alternatively, if the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes,

— order EUIPO and that other party to be jointly and severally liable for those costs.

Pleas in law

The contested decision is vitiated for four principal reasons, namely the Board:

— erred in law by failing to hold that advertising and offers for sale of the hotel and ancillary services, namely those in classes 38, 39, 41, 43 and 44, directed to EU consumers amounted to genuine use of the European Union trade mark in circumstances where those services were rendered in the United States;

— erred in law by failing to hold that advertising and promotion of the relevant services was sufficient to prove genuine use for those services;

— erred in law by failing to hold that advertising of the opening of the London hotel was relevant; and,
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 December 2020 — Nissan Motor v EUIPO — VDL Groep (VDL E-POWERED)

(Case T-756/20)

(2021/C 53/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd (Yokohama-shi, Japan) (represented by: P. Martini-Berthon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: VDL Groep BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands)

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 word mark VDL E-POWERED — Application for registration No 17 895 699

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2020 in Case R 2915/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— allow the present applicant for annulment;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

First plea in law, alleging abuse of power on part of the defendant On 12 October 2020, the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) issued a decision by which it rejected the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 3 September 2020 excluding her from the following stage of the competition, on the grounds that the applicant, inter alia, has neither a diploma in Croatian law nor knowledge of Croatian law, and that the decision of 13 March 2013, which had recognised her diploma in the Croatian Republic, does not include a comparison of the study programmes. In this way, EPSO conducted its own assessment, although no provision of EU law entitles it to do so, and, therefore, infringed the principle of distribution of powers in the European Union and exceeded its powers, because it is indisputable that the assessment of foreign qualifications is to be undertaken exclusively by the national bodies which are entitled to do so by law; in this case, by the Croatian Agencija za znanost i visoko obrazovanje (Agency for Science and Higher Education), under the Law on recognition of foreign qualifications, the rules for the assessment of qualifications obtained from foreign institutions of higher education, and the assessment criteria applied in proceedings concerning the recognition of professional qualifications. One of the fundamental principles, the principle of subsidiarity, has been infringed.
—

In the context of its discretion when carrying out complex economic and social assessments in the exercise of its competence under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, the defendant must be able to show that it evaluated all the relevant factors and circumstances of the situation which the contested act was intended to govern. The defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment when excluding the applicants’ sector from the list of eligible sectors contained in Annex I to the contested act, notably by (a) failing to take into account the relevant and complete electricity consumption data of the fertiliser sector to determine the sector’s indirect emission intensity, which led to the underestimation of the sector’s indirect emission intensity and to its exclusion from Annex I; (b) failing to take into account and examine all relevant facts provided by the application, as it disregarded the evidence, without stating reasoning, of the applicants; (c) with regard to the qualitative assessment, incorrectly assessing the sector’s qualification on the fuel/electricity substitutability criterion and failing to substantiate why the sector’s subsectors were not included in Annex I based on this criterion.
Action brought on 16 January 2021 — Be Smart v Commission

(Case T-18/21)

(2021/C 79/44)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Be Smart Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Satta, G. Roberti, A. Romano and I. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 12(1) and Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2015/1589, by failing to take a decision under Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 2015/1589, in particular to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU, in connection with the complaint lodged by the applicant on 15 October 2014 (SA.39639);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is based on Article 265 TFEU and seeks to obtain a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to take a position on the complaint lodged by Be Smart S.r.l. on 15 October 2014, registered under number SA.39639, concerning two unlawful State aid measures in favour of the Consorzio Interuniversitario Cineca.

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to act, which arises under the provisions regarding unlawful State aid, by failing to take action after receiving the invitation to act and not adopting a position on the complaint lodged on 15 October 2014. It also failed to observe the fundamental principle of good administration laid down in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Action brought on 25 January 2021 — Slovakia v Commission

(Case T-40/21)

(2021/C 98/34)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1) in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Slovak Republic with regard to the measure ‘Decoupled direct aids’ in respect of the 2016 financial year (and concerning claim years 2013 and 2014) in a total amount of EUR 19 656 905,11;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single pleas in law, which is based on the infringement of Article 52(4)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) in conjunction with Article 34(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 (3) inasmuch as the procedural guarantees under those provisions were not observed in relation to the Slovak Republic.

In its plea in law, the applicant claims that by Implementing Decision 2020/1734, the Commission excludes from European Union financing the sum of EUR 19 656 905,11, incurred by the Slovak Republic under the EAGF and which is part of the financial correction with regard to the measure ‘Decoupled Direct Aids’ in respect of financial year 2016 (Single Area Payment Scheme — weaknesses in LPIS update-quality, quality of on-the-spot checks and instigation of recoveries — claim year 2015), whereas according to the applicant that sum includes claim years 2013 and 2014, which were not the subject of an investigation.

(1) OJ 2020 L 390, p. 10.

(2) Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

(3) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 of 6 August 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, rules on checks, securities and transparency (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 59).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)

(Case T-27/21)

(2021/C 88/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: I. Junkar, I. Fowler, M. Petersenn and B. Lüthge, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark THINK DIFFERENT — European Union trade mark No 845 461

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2020 in Case R 2012/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 February 2021 — Cilem Records International v EUIPO — KVZ Music (HALIX RECORDS)

(Case T-118/21)

(2021/C 128/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cilem Records International UG (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: E. Hecht, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: KVZ Music Ltd (Sofia, Bulgaria)

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 registration of EU word mark HALIX RECORDS — Application for registration No 16 288 235

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 January 2021 in Case R 1060/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision of 28 January 2021 and EUIPO’s decision of 25 May 2020 concerning EU trade mark No 016288235 and allow the applicant’s opposition to registration of EU trade mark No 16288235 of 17 April 2017;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision of 28 January 2021 and refer the proceedings back to the Board of Appeal for reconsideration;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by holding that the aid to Lufthansa is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3) (b) TFEU.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 February 2021 — Construcciones Electromecanicas Sabero v EUIPO — Magdalenas de las Heras (Heras Bareche)

(Case T-99/21)

(2021/C 138/64)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Construcciones Electromecanicas Sabero, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, P. Román Maestre and D. Liern Cendrero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Magdalenas de las Heras, SA (Aranda de Duero, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Heras Bareche — Application for registration No 17 979 710

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2020 in Case R 1019/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council was erroneously applied in the contested decision;

— Grant protection in respect of all the goods and services sought in the application for registration of EU trade mark No 17 979 710 Heras Bareche (figurative) in Classes 30 and 35.

— Order the defendant to pay the costs associated with these proceedings, including the representation costs incurred by the applicant

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Numbi v Council

(Case T-112/21)

(2021/C 128/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in the annex to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

annul the decision of the European Commission, notified on 15 December 2020, fixing the amount of the quota allocated to the applicant in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, (1) in so far as the Commission reduced the quota on the basis of Article 25 of the Regulation;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 February 2021 — PIC CO v EUIPO — Haribo Ricqles Zan (P.I.C. Co.)

(Case T-73/21)

(2021/C 138/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PIC CO AD (Kazichene, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haribo Ricqles Zan (Marseille, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark P.I.C. Co. — European Union trade mark No 15 400 138

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2020 in Case R 1847/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 March 2021 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Kerckhoff (apo-discounter.de)

(Case T-140/21)

(2021/C 182/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apologistics GmbH (Markkleeberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Markus Kerckhoff (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany)

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 apo-discounter.de in red and yellow — European Union trade mark No 9 435 496

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 December 2020 in Case R 1439/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to the extent that the European Trademark apo-discounter.de (No. 9 435 496) was declared invalid for the following services: Class 35 — Retail services in relation to pharmacy products, chemicals, household goods and goods for the health sector;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceeding.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 8 (1), Article 46 (1) and Article 51 (1) of the defendant’s Pension Scheme Regulations and a manifest error of appreciation of the legal concept of invalidity.