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

Action brought on 27 May 2021 — CNH Industrial v EUIPO (CROPXPLORER)

(Case T-301/21)

(2021/C 297/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CNH Industrial NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Axel Karnøe Søndergaard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark CROPXPLORER — Application for registration No 18 217 458

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2021 in Case R 387/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety and allow the trade mark to be published for opposition purposes in respect of all the goods applied for, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the EUIPO in order that it may adopt the consequent measures;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by attributing an incorrect meaning to the trade mark applied for and by failing to consider the mark as filed;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by incorrectly assessing the descriptive character of the mark;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 June 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Brito & Pereira (TINTAS BRICOR)

(Case T-317/21)

(2021/C 289/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brito & Pereira (Vizela, Portugal)

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 the EU figurative mark TINTAS BRICOR — Application for registration No 17 944 336

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2021 in Case R 882/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in that, by dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent, it confirms the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in opposition proceedings B 3 070 825, granting EU trade mark No 17 944 336 TINTAS BRICOR (figurative) for certain goods and services in Classes 2 and 35;

— order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Incorrect assessment of the proof of use of the marks relied on in support of the opposition;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 June 2021 — mBank v EUIPO — European Merchant Bank (EMBANK European Merchant Bank)

(Case T-331/21)

(2021/C 320/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: mBank S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Merchant Bank UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania)

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 figurative mark EMBANK European Merchant Bank — European Union trade mark No 18 048 966

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 March 2021 in Case R 1845/2020-5

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

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to care towards staff, a failure to take into account the interests of both the institution and the applicant, and the disproportionate nature of the decision in view of the actual interest of the institution.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 June 2021 — Bambu Sales v EUIPO (BAMBU)

(Case T-342/21)

(2021/C 329/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bambu Sales, Inc. (Secaucus, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: T. Stein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BAMBU — Application for registration No 18 105 815

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2021 in Case R 1702/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

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 25 June 2021 — Jose A. Alfonso Arpon v EUIPO — Puma (PLUMAflex by Roal)

(Case T-357/21)

(2021/C 329/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jose A. Alfonso Arpon SL (Arnedo, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

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 PLUMAflex by Roal — Application for registration No 17 880 571

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2021 in Case R 2991/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 July 2021 — Etablissements Nicolas v EUIPO — St. Nicolaus (NICOLAS)

(Case T-373/21)

(2021/C 338/36)

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

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark NICOLAS — European Union trade mark No 6 231 484

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 21 April 2021 in Case R 1195/2020-4

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 respect of the 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 the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 July 2021 — Crédit agricole and Others v SRB

(Case T-388/21)

(2021/C 338/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Crédit agricole (Montrouge, France) and 48 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2021/22 of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 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, 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;

— 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 put forward in Case T-383/21, Banque postale v SRB.
Action brought on 5 July 2021 — Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v SRB

(Case T-392/21)

(2021/C 349/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale (Frankfurt am Main, 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 23 July 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-444/21)

(2021/C 357/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 12 March 2021 on State Aid SA.60113 — Finnair — COVID-19 — hybrid loan 107.2.b; (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 plea(s) 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 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 pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU.

(1) OJ 2021, C 240, p. 14.

(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).
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the scope of the confirmed methodology for cost sharing of redispatching and countertrading costs is unlawful. According to this scope, in principle, ‘all’ network elements with a kilovolt level of 220 and higher shall be eligible for cost sharing under the Polluter Pays Principle under Article 16(13) of the Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity (‘ER’). This is unlawful. The scope of the cost sharing methodology needs to comply with the capacity calculation process, according to which only network elements with a Power Transfer Distribution Factor (PTDF) of at least 5 % are technically feasible to limit cross-border trade and, thus, to require redispatching and countertrading measures of cross-border relevance. The contested decision has to be annulled, because it infringes, in particular, Article 16(13) ER and Article 74(2) and (4) of the Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 of 24 July 2015 establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management (‘CACM Regulation’). The Board of Appeal mistakes that a legal basis is necessary to extend the cost sharing under the Polluter Pays Principle also to network elements with a Power Transfer Distribution Factor below 5 %. However, such legal basis does not exist. Moreover, including almost all network elements into the scope of the methodology in question infringes Article 74 CACM Regulation, because it results in wrong incentives and is incompatible with the statutory responsibilities and liabilities of the TSOs involved.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the flat-rate correction for a net amount of EUR 2 056 473,43 is contrary to Article 5 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 (2) and Articles 28 and 29 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014. (3) The Commission made a manifest error in assessing a key control deficiency in the effectiveness of cross-checks and the quality of the geographic information system for agricultural parcels (SIGPAC). The Commission confused the isolated discrepancies detected in a process of on-screen checking of photo-interpretation corresponding to the SIGPAC, and the subsequent in situ verifications relating to four parcels selected at random, with the results of planned on-the-spot checks, corresponding to verifications of parcels having an eligibility coefficient on a pro rata basis in 2016, 2017 and 2018, carried out as part of the action plan to improve the updating of the SIGPAC. Although they are separate and distinct operations, the Commission reaches a joint conclusion by extrapolating the results of both operations in order to apply the contested correction, which the applicant considers incorrect and disproportionate.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (Device of a combination of lines in black and white forming a square)

(Case T-502/21)

(2021/C 391/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Device of a combination of lines in black and white forming a square) — Application for registration No 18 252 146

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2021 in Case R 78/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the perception of the relevant consumers;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of individuals’ fundamental rights, maintained in the European Union, to close family and ownership ties. That plea is divided into three limbs. — The first limb alleges infringement of the applicants’ right to legal certainty in so far as the stable situation which they peacefully enjoyed for decades without restrictions has been replaced by an unstable situation. — The second limb is alleges the infringement of the principle of equality, on the ground that the agreement equates very different situations, which leads to discrimination based on nationality. — The third limb alleges the infringement of the principle of proportionality, in so far as the agreement ignores the consequences of the requirement of a long-term visa on the applicants’ situation, in particular with regard to their private and family life.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 August 2021 — Epsilon Data Management v EUIPO — Epsilon Technologies (EPSILON TECHNOLOGIES)

(Case T-512/21)

(2021/C 412/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Epsilon Data Management LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Lindemans and J. Bussé, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Epsilon Technologies, SL (Sant Cugat del Valles, Spain)

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 figurative mark EPSILON TECHNOLOGIES — European Union trade mark No 8 914 855

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2021 in Joined Cases R 1611/2020-5 and R 1839/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible, together with all the associated documents and the corresponding copies;

— uphold the application, annul and set aside the contested decision and order the revocation of the contested EUTM No 8 914 855 due to non-use;

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

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging, principally, that Article 71 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) is unlawful and, in the alternative, that the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 May 2021 should be annulled on the ground that that decision is incompatible with the case-law relating to Article 71 of the Staff Regulations. In support of that plea, the applicant further alleges breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the duty of sound administration, and that the decision of the Appointing Authority is discriminatory.
—

annul the decision of 16 December 2020 to the extent that it dismisses the applicant’s application for the position of Head of Office of the EIB Vice-President and the decision to nominate [confidential] (1) to the position concerned;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Vivostore v EUIPO — Linda (VIVO LIFE)

(Case T-540/21)

(2021/C 431/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Vivostore Ltd (Winscombe, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Urek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Linda AG (Cologne, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark VIVO LIFE — Application for registration No 18 049 468

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2021 in Case R 1587/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul or vary the contested decision and uphold the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO in Case B 3 090 390 of 16 July 2020;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 September 2021 — Blueroots Technology v EUIPO — Rezk-Salama and Breitlauch (SKILLTREE STUDIOS)

(Case T-607/12)

(2021/C 462/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Blueroots Technology GmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: A. Huber-Erlenwein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Christof Rezk-Salama (Trier, Germany), Linda Breitlauch (Trier)

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 SKILLTREE STUDIOS — EU trade mark No 13 271 821

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2021 in Case R 2218/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision or amend it to the effect that trade mark No 13 271 821 ‘SKILLTREE STUDIOS’ is declared invalid and cancelled in respect of Classes 9, 41 and 42.

Plea in law
Action brought on 16 July 2021 — Veen v Europol

(Case T-436/21)

(2021/C 431/50)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Leon Leonard Johan Veen (Oss, the Netherlands) (represented by: T. Lysina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— order the European Union, represented by the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action for the award of damages based on non-contractual liability, brought pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 50(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/794, (1) the applicant relies on a single plea in law, based on the unlawful processing of his personal data by the defendant.

The applicant submits, in his plea in law, that the defendant included in the investigation file as evidence in criminal proceedings brought against the applicant in the Slovak Republic, a report by the defendant containing negative and false information about the applicant, unsubstantiated by evidence, resulting in the harmful event. He argues that through that conduct he sustained a slur on his good name and reputation and it entailed an infringement of his right to family life. The applicant has thus incurred non-material damage causally linked to that harmful event, which he assesses at EUR 50 000.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA (OJ 2016 L 135, p. 53).