ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/48

Action brought on 22 January 2018 — Asahi Intecc v EUIPO — Celesio (Celeson)

(Case T-36/18)

(2018/C 104/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Asahi Intecc Co. Ltd (Nagoya City, Japan) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Celesio AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘Celeson’ – International registration designating the European Union No 1 254 798

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2017 in Case R 1004/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition No B 2 644 816 filed by McKesson Europe AG (formerly Celesion AG) to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Celeson applied for by the applicant;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court;

— order EUIPO and McKesson Europe AG (formerly Celesion AG) each to pay half of the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/30

Action brought on 15 January 2018 — Crédit mutuel Arkéa v EUIPO — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Crédit Mutuel)

(Case T-13/18)

(2018/C 094/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (Le Relecq Kerhuon, France) (represented by: A. Casalonga, F. Codevelle and C. Bercial Arias, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Paris, France)

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 ‘Crédit Mutuel’ — European Union trade mark No 9 943 135

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2017 in Case R 1724/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it concedes that the European Union trade mark No 9 943 135 ‘Crédit Mutuel’ has a distinctive character through use for certain goods in Classes 9, 35 and 36;

— annul the contested decision in so far as it recognises the distinctive character of the European Union trade mark No 9 943 135 ‘Crédit Mutuel’ for certain goods in Classes 9, 16, 36, 38, 42 and 45;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/33

Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Multifit Tiernahrungs v EUIPO (MULTIFIT)

(Case T-98/18)

(2018/C 134/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark MULTIFIT — Application No 15 996 291

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 in Case R 846/2017-1

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 112/36

Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Planet v Commission

(Case T-29/18)

(2018/C 112/46)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the refusal decision of the Commission, whereby the Commission implicitly rejected the applicant’s request for access to the documents relating to the tendering procedure for the EuropeAid/137681/ΙΗ/SER/ROC/4 project; and

— order the Commission to pay all the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this action, Planet seeks the annulment of the Commission’s implicit decision whereby it denied Planet access to documents, under Regulation No 1049/2001, in connection with the EuropeAid/137681/ΙΗ/SER/ROC/4 tendering procedure.

Planet maintains that the Commission’s implicit refusal should be annulled, since no reasons have been stated, which is mandatory under Article 296 TFEU in terms of EU law and which constitutes an essential procedural requirement for EU acts.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of the obligation to state reasons, the principle of sound administration, the right to be heard and the rights of the defence, the duty of care, which vitiates the contested decision in this case, namely the decision of the European Parliament to reject the applicant’s application for assistance.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/57

Action brought on 02 March 2018 — Theodorakidi v EUIPO — Benopoulou (THYREOS VASSILIKI)

(Case T-160/18)

(2018/C 152/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Vassiliki Theodorakidi (Veroia, Greece) (represented by: F. Ikonomidou Ikonomou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vassiliki Benopoulou (Kifissia, Greece).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark THYREOS VASSILIKI — EU trade mark No 8 206 963

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2017 in Case R 40/2017-4.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and, consequently, reject the invalidity action;

— order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs, including the costs incurred before the Court, the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the Cancellation Division.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

— The Board of Appeal of EUIPO erred in law when stating that the other party is ‘widely known’;

— Infringement of the obligation to state reasons;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/60

Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (400 PANORAMICZNYCH)

(Case T-119/18)

(2018/C 142/78)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o. o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 704

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2200/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;

and/or

— declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

in the alternative

— annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 704), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;

and/or

— declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/43

Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Miles-Bramwell Executive Services v EUIPO (FREE)

(Case T-113/18)

(2018/C 152/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Miles-Bramwell Executive Services Ltd (Alfreton, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Mellor, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark FREE — Application for registration No 15 083 091

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 2164/2016-1

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)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 16 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 16 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;
—

declare that the defendant has infringed Article 130 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and the provisions of Annex II to those Rules by failing to forward to the Council of the European Union a written question, submitted by Members of the European Parliament in the proceedings registered with the reference number P-003358/17;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/46

Action brought on 22 March 2018 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Cars)

(Case T-210/18)

(2018/C 166/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Autec AG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 198387-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2018 in Case R 941/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the contested Community design No 198387-0001.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002;
—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 6 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 6 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/37

Action brought on 28 March 2018 — Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista v EUIPO — Battista Nino Caffè (Battistino)

(Case T-220/18)

(2018/C 190/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista Srl (Triggiano, Italy) (represented by: V. Franchini, F. Paesan and R. Bia, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Battista Nino Caffè Srl (Triggiano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark including the word element Battistino — International registration designating the European Union No 1 071 387

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2018 in Case R 400/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and consequently reject the application for a declaration of invalidity of the mark at issue;

— order EUIPO and Battista Nino Caffè Srl to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the two earlier sets of proceedings before the Cancellation Division of EUIPO and the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/33

Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Grange Backup Power v Commission

(Case T-110/18)

(2018/C 166/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grange Backup Power Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7789 final of 24 November 2017 on the Irish Capacity Mechanism (SA.44464 (2017/N)) implemented by Ireland;

— annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7794 final of 24 November 2017 on the Northern Irish Capacity Mechanism (SA.44465 (2017/N)) implemented by the United Kingdom; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, based on the failure of the Commission to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of the Procedural Regulation, (1) notwithstanding the doubts raised as to the compatibility of the all-island capacity remuneration mechanism (CRM) with the state aid and internal market rules, thereby depriving the applicant of its procedural rights. This plea is divided into four branches:

— the first branch refers to the existence of serious difficulties evidenced by the duration and circumstances of the procedure;

— the second branch alleges that the Commission should have had doubts regarding the compliance of the financing mechanism of the capacity remuneration mechanism with the TFEU;

— the third branch alleges that the Commission should have had doubts regarding the compatibility of the CRM with the internal market, in particular the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020; (2)

— in the fourth branch of its plea the applicant alleges that the Commission should have had doubts in its assessment of the capacity remuneration mechanism resulting from the effects of the United Kingdom’s notification to leave the European Union.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

(2) Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (OJ 2014 C 200, p. 1).
—

In the event that: (a) the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) Member State Committee's Opinion of Apri12015; (b) the ECHA Committee for Risk Assessment's Opinion of March 2016; (c) the ECHA Socio-Economic Assessment Committee Opinion of June 2016; (d) the ECHA PBT Expert Group conclusions / decisions of November 2012; and/or (e) relevant ECHA Guidance — are not regarded as preparatory acts leading to the adoption of the Contested Act — to declare those acts as illegal and inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/38

Action brought on 28 March 2018 — Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista v EUIPO — Battista Nino Caffè (BATTISTINO)

(Case T-221/18)

(2018/C 190/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista Srl (Triggiano, Italy) (represented by: V. Franchini, F. Paesan and R. Bia, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Battista Nino Caffè Srl (Triggiano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark BATTISTINO — International registration designating the European Union No 1 070 313

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2018 in Case R 402/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and consequently reject the application for a declaration of invalidity of the mark at issue;

— order EUIPO and Battista Nino Caffè Srl to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the two earlier sets of proceedings before the Cancellation Division of EUIPO and the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law
Case T-277/18: Action brought on 4 May 2018 — Zitro IP v EUIPO (PICK & WIN MULTISLOT)

Action brought on 4 May 2018 — Zitro IP v EUIPO (PICK & WIN MULTISLOT)

(Case T-277/18)

Parties

Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark PICK & WIN MULTISLOT — Application for registration No 16 071 946

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 in Case R 978/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

The Commission has not provided sufficient reasons such as to enable the applicants to understand the basis on which the Commission issued the decision. It is not clear from the decision (i) the grounds on which the Commission has held that the previous scheme was absorbed by the current scheme, and (ii) the basis on which the absorption of one scheme by another precludes the need for an assessment of the first scheme for compliance with State aid rules. Both were key findings that led to the Commission’s adoption of the decision. Accordingly, the applicants have been deprived of their fundamental right to receive a decision that allows them to understand how and why the Commission has come to the conclusions expressed in the decision.
Case T-263/18: Action brought on 26 April 2018 — Meblo Trade v EUIPO — Meblo Int (MEBLO)

Action brought on 26 April 2018 — Meblo Trade v EUIPO — Meblo Int (MEBLO)

(Case T-263/18)

Parties

Applicant: Meblo Trade d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meblo Int, proizvodnja izdelkov za spanje d.o.o. (Nova Gorica, Slovenia)

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 figurative mark in black and red MEBLO — EU trade mark No 3 431 731

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2018 in Case R 883/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of the principle of the presumption of innocence, the right of defence and the principle of equality of arms, and, secondly, infringement of the principle of sound administration, the principle of the proportionality and the right to freedom of expression.
—

annul the decision appointing [confidential] ( 1 ) to the post of Head of Unit of the Delegation of the European Union to Japan and the decision rejecting the applicant’s candidature;
Case T-323/18: Action brought on 22 May 2018 — Fomanu v EUIPO — Fujifilm Imaging Germany (Representation of a butterfly)

Action brought on 22 May 2018 — Fomanu v EUIPO — Fujifilm Imaging Germany (Representation of a butterfly)

(Case T-323/18)

Parties

Applicant: Fomanu AG (Neustadt a.d. Waldnaab, Germany) (represented by: S. Reichart, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fujifilm Imaging Germany GmbH & Co. KG (Willich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark No 5 481 403

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2018 in Case R 2241/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it declared the contested EU trade mark to have expired for the following goods and services: Class 9 — CDs; DVDs; computer programs and software, in particular software for the exchange, storage, reproduction and systematic capture of data; Class 16 — Printed matter included in Class 16, excluding printed matter customised with personal photos (in particular photo books, photo calendars, photo canvases, photo puzzles, photo notebooks and photo folders); Class 38 — Providing access to a computer database for downloading information via electronic media (the Internet); computer-aided transmission of messages and images; Class 40 — Bookbinding;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and (2), in conjunction with Article 18(1), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

annul the defendant’s decision of unknown date, communicated to the applicant by letter of 26 March 2018, rejecting its bid for lot 2 of tender EuropeAid/138778/DH/SER/Multi — Framework contract for the implementation of external aid 2018 (FWC SIEA 2018), and awarding the contract to ten other tenderers;
2.

Infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection as enshrined in the fundamental principles of EU law, in particular Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.