ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 330/11

Action brought on 25 July 2017 — Raise Conseil v EUIPO — Raizers (RAISE)

(Case T-463/17)

(2017/C 330/14)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Raise Conseil (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Raizers (Paris)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘RAISE’ — European Union trade mark No 11 508 967

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2017 in Case R 1606/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to the extent that it declared invalid EU trade mark RAISE No 11 508 967 for lack of distinctiveness within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR in relation to the following services in Class 36: ‘Financial affairs; financial information; financial management; financing services; financial analysis; mutual funds and capital investments; financial consultancy; financial sponsorship; financing (loan) business; financial evaluation (insurance, banking, real estate); setting up and investment of funds; factoring; issue of tokens of value; stock exchange quotations; securities brokerage; monetary affairs; exchanging money; fiscal valuations and assessments; real estate affairs; insurance; provident fund services; direct banking; issuing of travellers’ cheques or credit cards; real estate appraisal; real estate management’;

— order the company Raizers, applicant in the action for a declaration of invalidity, to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the company Raise Conseil, including representation expenses.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/39

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Financiere Tesalia and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case T-508/17)

(2017/C 347/51)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Financiere Tesalia, SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Cartera Zurbano, SA (Madrid, Spain), Finexperta, SA (Madrid), Eurosigma, SA (Madrid) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should annul:

— Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board taken at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A.;

— Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
—

set aside the contested decision of 8 May 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender in procedure EIGE/2017/OPER/04 ‘Female Genital Mutilation: Estimating Girls at Risk’ and the subsequent decisions which assessed the bid of another tenderer as successful and which awarded the contract to that tenderer;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging substantive illegality of the contested decision; this plea is divided into three parts: — First part, alleging infringement of the principle of equality inasmuch as, by adopting the contested decision and its annex, the defendant has allowed a withdrawal procedure to be initiated without expatriate European citizens having had the opportunity to set out their views on the possible loss of their European citizenship. The right to be heard and to express one’s opinion by way of a vote in the event of an election with a European scope has thus not been respected. The contested decision therefore validates the existence of a category of second-class citizens, deprived of their right to vote because they have exercised their freedom of movement, and that decision has consequently failed to comply with the principle of equal treatment of citizens. The applicants take the view that discrimination between citizens on the basis of their residence has occurred. — Second part, alleging infringement of Article 203 TFEU in that the contested decision provides for the withdrawal of the British overseas countries and territories (OCTs), without the inhabitants of those OCTs having been able to vote for withdrawal from the association arrangement laid down by the European Treaty, without reference to the specific procedure under Article 203 TFEU which applies to them, and consequently the freedom of establishment under Article 199 TFEU is infringed by the contested decision. — Third part, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of legitimate expectations inasmuch as the applicants consider that the opening of negotiations on the withdrawal agreement, the outcome of which is uncertain, will have a significant impact on the rules governing the rights which they derive from European citizenship, notwithstanding the fact that they have created a private and family life for themselves in another Member State through exercising their freedom of movement. The contested decision and its annex thus do not comply with the requirement of predictability of legal rules imposed by the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, and are also at variance with respect for private and family life.
—

Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June (non-confidential version) of the Executive Committee of the Single Resolution Board adopting the resolution scheme of the Banco Popular Español, S.A., on the basis of infringement of Articles 7, 18(1) and 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, as well as the artificial alteration of the immediate causes which resulted in the institution’s resolution.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/27

Action brought on 5 September 2017 — Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-598/17)

(2017/C 357/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent and P. Pucciariello, Avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul, in so far as it is the subject matter of the present action, European Commission Implementing Decision No 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017, notified on the same date, on the exclusion from European Union financing of certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD);

— order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging breach of Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1) and Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy. (2)

By that plea, the applicant challenges the application of the financial corrections imposed by the contested decision, in view of the inconsistency of the information.

The applicant also challenges the quantification of those financial corrections, in so far as the actual amount set is disproportionate and clearly illogical, being significantly higher than any damage potentially resulting from the conduct imputed to the Italian authorities.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103.

(2) OJ L 209, 18.8.2005, p. 1.
—

In accordance with Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order SRB to pay to the applicants, at the expense of the Single Resolution Fund established in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 806/2014, compensation for the damage caused to the applicants as a direct consequence of the Decision concerning the Banco Popular and the value of which corresponds to the market value of the capital instruments of the banking institution the day preceding (6 June 2017) the implementation of the resolution scheme; in the alternative, in the event that the Court does not uphold the previous claim for compensation, order SRB to pay to the applicants compensation, the value of which corresponds to the difference, which will be determined by the valuation of the independent person laid down in Article 20(16) of Regulation No 806/2014, between the payment in respect of their claims received by the applicants pursuant to the application of the Decision and the amount they would have received under a normal insolvency procedure;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/48

Action brought on 18 September 2017 — Aeris Invest v Commission and SRB

(Case T-628/17)

(2017/C 374/71)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Roca Junyent, J. Calvo Costa, R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

— Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme the Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

— Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

— Order SRB and the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
—

Accept the consequences of the decision of the Single Resolution Board which was adopted erroneously, either because of lack of transparency or because of failure to take prior preventive measures which would have avoided the loss of shareholders’ capital through its depreciation and, consequently, order the payment of compensation to the applicant in the amount of the loss resulting from the erroneous procedure and decision, namely EUR 7 805,29.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/57

Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Eddy’s Snack Company v EUIPO — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Eddy’s Snackcompany)

(Case T-652/17)

(2017/C 382/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH (Lügde, Germany) (represented by: M. Decker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Eddy’s Snackcompany’ — Application for registration No 14 363 931

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2017 in Case R 1999/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— definitively reject the other party’s opposition to trade mark application No 14363931 ‘Eddy’s Snackcompany’ submitted by Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH;

— order EUIPO to allow trade mark application No 14363931 ‘Eddy’s Snackcompany’ to proceed to registration for all designated goods;

— at the very least, order EUIPO to grant trade mark application No 14363931 ‘Eddy’s Snackcompany’ for all designated goods in Classes 29, 31 and 32;

— order the other party or EUIPO jointly or individually to pay the applicant’s costs, disbursements and fees in the proceedings before the Court and in the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement by the Appointing Authority of Article 7(1) of the General Implementing Provisions (GIPs) of 3 March 2011 in the calculation by that Authority of the deduction of the amount representing the increase in value of that capital between the date of the application for transfer and that of the actual transfer.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/55

Action brought on 10 October 2017 — Link Entertainment v EUIPO — García-Sanjuan Machado (SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS)

(Case T-694/17)

(2017/C 402/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Link Entertainment, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sandra García-Sanjuan Machado (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS’ — European Union trade mark No 12 672 853

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2017 in Case R 1758/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and find that the cancellation of EU trade mark No 12 672 853 ‘SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS’ for Classes 35 and 41 is unfounded; and

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal and the invalidity proceedings.

Plea in law
Case T-715/17: Action brought on 11 October 2017 — Hermann Biederlack v EUIPO (Feeling home)

Action brought on 11 October 2017 — Hermann Biederlack v EUIPO (Feeling home)

(Case T-715/17)

Parties

Applicant: Hermann Biederlack GmbH & Co. KG (Greven, Germany) (represented by: T. Seifried, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Feeling home’ — Application for registration No 15 452 931

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 in Case R 252/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/52

Action brought on 2 Octobre 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (khadi Naturprodukte aus Indien)

(Case T-682/17)

(2017/C 402/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose, V. Ellis, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘khadi Naturprodukte aus Indien’ — EU trade mark No 8 216 343

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 in Case R 2085/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and find that the contested EUTM is invalid;

— make an award of costs in the favour of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— The Board of Appeal distorted the evidence;

— Infringement of Articles 7(1)(g) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

Acknowledge the lodging of the action against Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 made by the Single Resolution Board in its Expanded Executive Session of 7 June 2017, adopting the resolution scheme concerning the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A., in accordance with the provisions of Article 29 of 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 and, after having allowed access to all the documents in the file and given the possibility of making further claims, annul or revoke the contested decision, reinstating in full the legal effect of the applicant’s economic rights, in accordance with the requirements of full compensation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/53

Action brought on 12 October 2017 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi)

(Case T-702/17)

(2017/C 424/76)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: V. Marsland, Solicitor and S. Malynicz, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Papouis Dairies LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in colours containing the word elements ‘Papouis Halloumi’ — Application for registration No 11 176 344

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2017 in Case R 2782/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/40

Action brought on 9 October 2017 — Ntolas v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GN Laboratories)

(Case T-712/17)

(2017/C 437/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Christos Ntolas (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: C. Renger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: General Nutrition Investment Co. (Delaware, Arizona, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GN Laboratories’ — Application for registration No 11 223 559

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2017 in Case R 2358/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition brought against the application for the Community Trademark No 011223559;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea: infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, of Article 22 of the Charter and of Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations in that the choice of second language is improperly restricted to solely three languages, namely English, French and German, to the exclusion of the other official languages of the European Union, and because in Option 1 the third language is restricted to English, French and German, to the exclusion of the other official languages of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/29

Action brought on 9 November 2017 — Bischoff v EUIPO — Miroglio Fashion (CARACTÈRE)

(Case T-743/17)

(2018/C 013/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Bischoff GmbH (Muggensturm, Germany) (represented by: D. Régnier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miroglio Fashion Srl (Alba, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Miroglio Fashion Srl

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘CARACTÈRE’ — European Union trade mark No 7 061 922

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2017 in Case R 328/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in that it dismissed the appeal of the company Bischoff seeking a declaration of invalidity of the mark No 007061922 for the goods and services in Classes 14, 18, 24, 25 and 35;

— order EUIPO and the company Miroglio Fashion to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/48

Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Traviacar and Others v SRB

(Case T-700/17)

(2018/C 005/65)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Traviacar, S.L. (O Carballiño, Spain) and 96 other applicants (represented by: P. Rúa Sobrino, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EES/2017/08) and the independent expert’s valuation on which it is based in accordance with Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014;

— Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;

— Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.