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

Action brought on 30 July 2021 — Thomas Henry v EUIPO (MATE MATE)

(Case T-452/21)

(2021/C 368/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Henry GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, N. Willich and D. Mienert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark MATE MATE — Application for registration No 18 091 934

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2021 in Case R 406/2021-1

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 (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 August 2021 — Ryanair and Malta Air v Commission

(Case T-494/21)

(2021/C 391/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) and Malta Air ltd. (Pietà, Malta) (represented by: F.-C. Laprévote, E. Vahida, 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 5 April 2021 on State aid SA.59913 (2021/N) — France — COVID-19 — Recapitalisation of Air France and the Air France — KLM Holding; (1) and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly excluded KLM form the scope of the contested decision.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied the Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFUE.

4. Forth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European Law that have underpinned the liberalisation of EU air transport since the late 1980s (i.e., nondiscrimination, free provision of services (2) and free establishment).

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite the serious difficulties and violated the applicants’ procedural rights.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision failed to meet the requirements of Article 342 TFUE and of the Regulation 1/58 pertaining to the language of official acts of EU institutions. (3)

(1) OJ 2021 C 240, p. 13.

(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).

(3) EEC Council: Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958 17, p. 385-386).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 August 2021 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Sunwhite)

(Case T-459/21)

(2021/C 382/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Calrose Rice (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: H. Raychev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ricegrowers Ltd (Leeton, New South Wales, Australia)

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 Sunwhite — Application for registration No 18 115 808

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2021 in Case R 2465/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and remit the European trade mark application No 18 115 808 SUNWHITE to the EUIPO in order to allow it to proceed to registration;

— order the EUIPO and the intervener in the present proceedings to bear their own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings, as well as the costs of the appeal procedure before the Fourth Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— The Board wrongly assumed that the applicant had admitted in its statement of grounds that the compared goods in Class 30 are identical;

— The Board erred in finding that the compared signs share all their elements;

— The Board was wrong to limit, or focus exclusively, its conclusions regarding the comparison of the signs on the verbal components of the signs;
First plea in law, alleging incorrect interpretation of the consequences of access to the OLAF report.

The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision must be annulled in so far as access to the OLAF report could not, according to Articles 10(1) and 2(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001, (1) be made available in the ‘public domain’.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 August 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-499/21)

(2021/C 391/37)

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 applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 23 April 2021 on State aid SA.62304 (2021/N) — Portugal — COVID-19: Damage compensation to TAP Portugal; (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 pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error 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.

(1) OJ 2021 C 240, p. 33.

(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).
—

order the administration to compensate the effects of that illegality on the applicant’s pension rights, namely the difference between his actual pension and the pension which he claims he would have been entitled to by reference to his last basic salary including the management allowance;
Action brought on 14 August 2021 — Girardi v EUIPO

(Case T-497/21)

(2021/C 412/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giovanna Paola Girardi (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the notification issued on 14 June 2021 by the Operations Department in the procedure 50057C and in all other files where the applicant/right holder has its registered address outside the European Union, by which the Applicant cannot represent clients whose registered domicile is outside of the European Union;

— declare the change of practice introduced in the EUIPO’s Guidelines in respect of the professional representation of Spanish lawyers before the EUIPO (Annex 1, Section 5, Part A) illegal;

— order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the Treaties, as the EUIPO has violated the principles of legal certainty, of legitimate expectations, of proportionality and of non-discrimination by notifying to the applicant an irregularity in the power to act as a representative before the EUIPO on the grounds that in Spain, ‘abogados’ can only represent clients whose permanent place of residence is in the European Union and clients whose permanent residence is outside the European Union must be represented by a professional representative holding the title ‘Agente Oficial de la Propiedad Industrial’.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 120 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (1).

3. Third plea in law, alleging the lack of competence of the EUIPO to deprive Spanish lawyers of a right that exists since 1996 to fully and unconditionally practice before the EUIPO.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (EC) (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 September 2021 — the airscreen company v EUIPO — Moviescreens Rental (airframe)

(Case T-539/21)

(2021/C 422/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and D. Mienert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Moviescreens Rental GmbH (Damme, 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 figurative mark airframe — EU trade mark No 17 948 222

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2021 in Case R 63/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea, alleging violation of the legal framework. The applicant submits, inter alia, that the vacancy notice did not provide for remote examination and that he did not give his consent for remote written and oral examinations. The applicant adds that he did not have the choice between face-to-face and remote examinations. Moreover, according to the applicant, a remote examination in July 2020 was not justified because Greece had then been in the green zone since 4 May 2020, the date on which the lockdown ended. Finally, the applicant maintains that he was rejected for having obtained 60 points out of 100, whereas only eligible candidates having obtained 75/100 succeeded, it being specified that nothing was provided for in the notice concerning such a level of mark to be achieved.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 September 2021 — Worldwide Brands v EUIPO — Guangyu Wan (CAMEL)

(Case T-552/21)

(2021/C 431/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Worldwide Brands, Inc. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: R. Ahijón Lana and J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eric Guangyu Wan (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada)

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 CAMEL — European Union trade mark No 1 015 593

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 July 2021 in Case R 1548/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision to the extent that it upheld the appeal filed by the intervener and rejected the application for a declaration for revocation in relation to ‘shirts’;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs deriving from the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the First Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 September 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-555/21)

(2021/C 431/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design No 1 431 829-0003

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2021 in Case R 1007/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision to: — allow the applicant’s appeal, — dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicant’s application ICD 10 300 to declare the contested design invalid, — order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;

— order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s fees and costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155);

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172);

— Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 September 2021 — lastminute v EUIPO — Scai (B Heroes)

(Case T-587/21)

(2021/C 462/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: lastminute foundation (Chiasso, Switzerland) (represented by: C. De Marchi and D. Contini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scai Comunicazione Srl unipersonale (Potenza, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark B Heroes in magenta and grey — European Union trade mark No 17 582 891

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 July 2021 in Joined Cases R 1245/2020-5 and R 1279/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as the Board of Appeal upheld in part the appeal in Case R 1245/2020-5 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 1279/2020-5;

— accordingly, confirm that European Union trade mark No 17 582 891 remains registered in respect of all the goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breaches the article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 march 2015 on common rules for imports (1) by committing a manifest error of assessment in the determination of serious injury and likelihood of serious injury;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 October 2021 — Carlings v EUIPO — Margarete Steiff (STUHF)

(Case T-635/21)

(2021/C 471/87)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Carlings AS (Billingstad, Norway) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and J. Haesemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Margarete Steiff GmbH (Giengen/Brenz, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark STUHF — Application for registration No 18 038 089

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2021 in Case R 2024/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— order the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO to bear its own costs, to the extent that it participates in the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 13 September 2021 — Copal Tree Brands v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (COPAL TREE)

(Case T-572/21)

(2021/C 462/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Copal Tree Brands, Inc. (Oakland, California, United States) (represented by: B. Niemann Fadani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sumol + Compal Marcas SA (Carnaxide, Portugal)

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 word mark COPAL TREE — Application for registration No 17 955 496

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2021 in Case R 1580/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 2 June 2020 in Opposition No B3076122;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 October 2021 — L. Oliva Torras v EUIPO — Mecánica del Frío (Vehicle couplings)

(Case T-652/21)

(2021/C 481/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: L. Oliva Torras (Manresa. Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mecánica del Frío, SL (Cornellá de Llobregat, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design (Vehicle couplings) — European Union design No 002217588-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 August 2021 in Case R 1306/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; or

— alter the contested decision; and

— order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs, if these have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 4(2) and (3) and Article 8(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 6/2002;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Çolakoğlu Metalurji and Çolakoğlu Dış Ticaret v Commission

(Case T-630/21)

(2021/C 471/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Çolakoğlu Metalurji AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey), Çolakoğlu Dış Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul) (represented by: J. Cornelis and F. Graafsma, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1100 of 5 July 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Turkey (OJ 2021 L 238, p. 32); and

— order the European Commission to pay the applicants’ 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 a violation of Article 2(10)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) by making an adjustment for a (notional) commission to the export price and, more specifically, — A violation of Article 2(10)(i)) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 to the extent the adjustment made for commissions exceeds the actual commission paid to Çolakoğlu Dış Ticaret AŞ; — A violation of Article 2(10)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 as Çolakoğlu Dış Ticaret AŞ does not receive a mark-up; and — A manifest error of assessment in treating Çolakoğlu Dış Ticaret AŞ as an agent working on a commission basis and consequent violation of Article 2(10)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(10)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 by requiring payment of import duties for accepting a duty drawback adjustment.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in refusing to carry out a quarterly dumping margin calculation and consequent violation of the chapeau of Article 2(10) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(10)(j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 by refusing to adjust for hedging gains and losses.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (JO 2016 L 176, p. 21).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 September 2021 — Kakuzo v EUIPO — Rauch Fruchtsäfte (Kakuzo)

(Case T-592/21)

(2021/C 502/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kakuzo GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and D. Mienert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rauch Fruchtsäfte GmbH (Rankweil, Austria)

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 word mark Kakuzo — Application for registration No 17 452 541

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2021 in Case R 356/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
4.

Fourth plea in law: the overall assessment was carried out solely on the basis of use. The overall assessment must be carried out on the basis of other criteria, which leads to the result that the Mesh Lounge — leaving aside its classification under the other possible headings — would have to be classified under heading 3926 9097 90 of the Combined Nomenclature. The Mesh Lounge cannot be regarded as camping equipment. Alternatively, classification under heading 9503 0095 90 (other toys from plastics) of the Combined Nomenclature is a possibility if the Mesh Lounge is considered to be similar to air mattresses.