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

Action brought on 27 May 2022 — QC and Others v EUIPO — Przedsiębiorstwo Drobiarskie Grzegorz Wyrębski (BLUE BRAND CHICKEN)

(Case T-316/22)

(2022/C 284/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicants: QC, QD and QE (represented by: A. Suskiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Przedsiębiorstwo Drobiarskie Grzegorz Wyrębski (Wróblew, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Applicants

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional EU trade mark ‘BLUE BRAND CHICKEN’ — EU trade mark No 13 071 378

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2022 in Case R 1166/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings in the form of expenses necessarily incurred by the applicants for the purpose of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Plea alleging that the findings of EUIPO are inconsistent with the Polish legal order;

— Plea regarding the classification of [Przedsiębiorstwo Drobiarskie Grzegorz Wyrębski] as a ‘third party’ for the purposes of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Breach of the principle of the uniformity of case-law and infringement of Article 63(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Plea alleging that an incorrect date was used when determining the date of filing of the EU trade mark at issue, that is to say, plea alleging infringement of Articles 36 and 37 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to state reasons. The applicant submits, first of all, that the Council has not set out individual, specific and concrete reasons that would provide him with a sufficient indication of the validity of the restrictive measures taken against him. He considers that the contested decisions do not have a sufficiently solid factual basis and are based on grounds that are unsubstantiated and the cogency of which is only abstract. The applicant considers, next, that the Council has placed the burden on him to provide proof that the general facts alleged against him are not true, thus reversing the burden of proof, which is contrary to the most fundamental rights of the defence. Lastly, the applicant claims that the alleged grounds are insufficient and that there is no credible and substantive evidence in support of those grounds, and submits that that prevents an adequate judicial review of the lawfulness of the inclusion and maintenance of his name on the lists of persons subject to the restrictive measures in question.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 May 2022 — QC and Others v EUIPO — Przedsiębiorstwo Drobiarskie Grzegorz Wyrębski (RED BRAND CHICKEN)

(Case T-312/22)

(2022/C 284/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicants: QC, QD and QE (represented by: A. Suskiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Przedsiębiorstwo Drobiarskie Grzegorz Wyrębski (Wróblew, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Applicants

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional EU trade mark ‘RED BRAND CHICKEN’ — EU trade mark No 13 068 861

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2022 in Case R 1165/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings in the form of expenses necessarily incurred by the applicants for the purpose of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Plea alleging that the findings of EUIPO are inconsistent with the Polish legal order;

— Plea regarding the classification of [Przedsiębiorstwo Drobiarskie Grzegorz Wyrębski] as a ‘third party’ for the purposes of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Breach of the principle of the uniformity of case-law and infringement of Article 63(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Plea alleging that an incorrect date was used when determining the date of filing of the EU trade mark at issue, that is to say, plea alleging infringement of Articles 36 and 37 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 June 2022 — Etablissements Nicolas v EUIPO — St. Nicolaus (NICOLAS)

(Case T-340/22)

(2022/C 284/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Etablissements Nicolas (Thiais, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: St. Nicolaus a.s. (Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark NICOLAS — International registration designating the European Union No 1 228 435

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 March 2022 in Case R 1780/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea 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 that the Commission wrongly and unlawfully failed to submit an inventory list and wrongly failed to provide reasons for why no inventory list was submitted. A full refusal of the inventory list is disproportionate and is disproportionate to the aim pursued. In particular, it is impossible to see how the provision of the inventory list sought will harm the commercial interests and investigations within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
Action brought on 13 May 2022 — Xpand Consortium and Others v Commission

(Case T-281/22)

(2022/C 294/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Xpand Consortium (Brussels, Belgium), NTT Data Belgique (Brussels), Sopra Steria Benelux (Brussels), Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Brussels) (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer, L. Lence de Frutos and A. Rebollar Corrales, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision of 3 March 2022 cancelling the procurement procedure with reference BUDG19/PO/04;

— order the defendant to pay all the legal fees and costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons and a manifest error of assessment committed by the European Commission, on the grounds that the service level agreement is a valid selection criterion.

2. Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, on the grounds that the European Commission (i) limited itself in its interpretation of the concepts contained in the tendering documents during the procurement procedure with reference BUDG19/PO/04 and then changed its position and (ii) led Xpand Consortium to entertain justified expectations about the legality of the service level agreement as a selection criterion.

3. Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of sound administration, on the grounds that the European Commission did not (i) communicate the cancellation of procurement procedure with reference BUDG19/PO/04 as soon as possible, as required by Article 171 of the Financial Regulation (1) and (ii) notify Xpand Consortium of the European Commission’s Decision of 3 March 2022 cancelling the procurement procedure with reference BUDG19/PO/04 and the reasons for adopting said decision as soon as possible.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, on the grounds that (i) by cancelling procurement procedure with reference BUDG19/PO/04 the European Commission adopted the most onerous and disadvantaged measure whereas there were other proportionate measures and (ii) by launching a new procurement procedure with the same object the European Commission is giving an undue competitive advantage to Xpand Consortium’s rivals in the tender.

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Diesel v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (Joggjeans)

(Case T-379/22)

(2022/C 311/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, 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: European Union word mark Joggjeans — European Union trade mark No 18 187 200

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2022 in Case R 1074/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold it its entirety the application filed by Diesel SpA and annul the contested decision;

— order the intervener to pay the costs, including all the costs of the earlier stages of these proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v SRB

(Case T-392/22)

(2022/C 311/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Conféderation nationale du Crédit Mutuel (Paris, France) and the 25 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2022/18 of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of 2022 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;

— pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, (1) the Implementing Regulation (2) and the Delegated Regulation (3) inapplicable: — Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; — Articles 4(2), 5,6, 7 and 20 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; — Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-391/22, Société générale and Others v SRB.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 1).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation No 806/2014 with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(3) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59 with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).
1.

First plea in law, divided in two limbs, alleging the Commission’s failure to issue a Notice of initiation and carry out an investigation in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on common rules for imports (2) ahead of adopting the Contested Regulation. The applicant claims that the Commission’s failure constitutes a serious breach of EU law, insofar it violates, first, the provisions and underlying principles of the basic Safeguard Regulation as interpreted in the light of the WTO rules (first limb of the first plea in law), and, second, the applicant’s fundamental rights of defence (second limb of the first plea in law).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 July 2022 — Kalypso Media Group v EUIPO (COMMANDOS)

(Case T-425/22)

(2022/C 318/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kalypso Media Group GmbH (Worms, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark COMMANDOS — Application No 18 062 634

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2022 in Case R 1864/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of 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 21 July 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Biolark (BIOLARK)

(Case T-459/22)

(2022/C 340/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Biolark, Inc. (San Diego, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark BIOLARK — International registration designating the European Union No 1 453 505

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2022 in Case R 1234/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— revoke the contested decision and reject the European designation of the International trademark No 1 453 505 for all goods and services;

— impose the costs to the defendant and, in case BIOLARK INC. decides to intervene in the present proceedings, to BIOLARK INC.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 June 2022 — Good Services v EUIPO — ITV Studios Global Distribution (EL ROSCO)

(Case T-381/22)

(2022/C 340/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Good Services ltd. (Sliema, Malta) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ITV Studios Global Distribution Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark EL ROSCO — EU trade mark No 17 907 312

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2022 in Case R 959/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and confirm the registration of EU trade mark No 17 907 312 for all the goods and services for which it was granted or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO for further consideration following directions from the Court;

— order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings and the previous proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the application of the IPS (Institutional Protection Scheme) indicator infringes Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, (1) which must be interpreted in the light of higher-ranking law

In the context of the second subparagraph of Article 7(4) of the Delegated Regulation, the defendant should have taken into account the fact that the applicant holds derivatives primarily for hedging and risk management purposes.

In applying the IPS indicator, the significance of the applicant’s membership of the institutional guarantee scheme of the Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe (Savings Banks Finance Group) was misjudged.

Under the second subparagraph of Article 6(5) of the Delegated Regulation, the defendant should also have taken account of the low probability of the institution concerned being resolved and thus of the use of the Single Resolution Fund and should have observed the principle of proportionality.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 July 2022 — Gürok Turizm ve Madencilik v EUIPO — Darvas and Pap (LAAVA)

(Case T-473/22)

(2022/C 359/114)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Gürok Turizm ve Madencilik Anonim Sirketi (Kütahya, Turkey) (represented by: M. López Camba and A. Lyubomirova Geleva, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gábor Darvas (Budapest, Hungary), Dorina Pap (Kiskunhalas, Hungary)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative LAAVA mark — Application for registration No 18 209 861

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2022 in Case R 1745/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to the extent that it maintains the rejection of the opposition and orders the opponent/appellant to bear the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by Gürok Turizm ve Madencilik Anonim Sirketi;

— order Gábor Darvas and Dorina Pap to pay the costs incurred by Gürok Turizm ve Madencilik Anonim Sirketi.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 August 2022 — Mordashova v Council

(Case T-497/22)

(2022/C 368/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marina Alexandrova Mordashova (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, D. Bogaert, A. Guillerme and L. Burguin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/883 of 3 June 2022 in so far as it includes the applicant at No 1156 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/878 of 3 June 2022 in so far as it includes the applicant at No 1156 in Annex I to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action against Decision (CFSP) 2022/883 (1) and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/878, (2) in so far as they concern her, the applicant relies on four pleas in law:

1. The first plea in law alleges a breach of the right to effective judicial protection and the administration’s obligation to state reasons.

2. The second plea in law alleges a manifest error of assessment in relation to the Council’s reasons.

3. The third plea in law alleges a breach of the principle of proportionality and of fundamental rights as regards the adoption of restrictive measures against the applicant and unjustified interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

4. The fourth plea in law alleges a breach of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of legal certainty.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/883 of 3 June 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 153, p. 92).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/878 of 3 June 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 153, p. 15).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 August 2022 — Group of processors and producers of sheepmilk and goatmilk v EUIPO — Kolios (HALLOUMAKI)

(Case T-481/22)

(2022/C 368/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Group of processors and producers of sheepmilk and goatmilk (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law and C. Milbradt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kolios AE Elliniki Viomichania Galaktos (Kilkis, Greece)

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 HALLOUMAKI — Application for registration No 18 126 405

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2022 in Case R 1941/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO (and the intervener, should it take part in the proceedings) to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the applicant for annulment before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law