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

Action brought on 4 June 2020 — Kfz-Gewerbe v EUIPO — The Blink Fish (Representation of a fish)

(Case T-354/20)

(2020/C 262/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wirtschaftsgesellschaft des Kfz-Gewerbes mbH (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Blink Fish Srl (Milan, Italy)

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 (Representation of a fish) — European Union trade mark No 17 301 359

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2020 in Case R 2333/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision as far as the following services of the contested European Union trade mark application No 17 301 359 are concerned: — class 35: Advertising, Business management; — class 38: Telecommunication services; — class 41: Entertainment services, Sporting and cultural activities, Teaching, Training;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of 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 10 July 2020 — Sedus Stoll v EUIPO — Kappes (Sedus ergo+)

(Case T-436/20)

(2020/C 279/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sedus Stoll AG (Dogern, Germany) (represented by: M. Goldmann and J. Thomsen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wolfgang Kappes (Bochum, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ — Application for registration No 15 958 374

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2020 in Case R 2194/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division in Case No B 2 863 929; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union and order the potential intervener (Wolfgang Kappes) to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Sedus Stoll v EUIPO — Kappes (Sedus ergo+)

(Case T-429/20)

(2020/C 279/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sedus Stoll AG (Dogern, Germany) (represented by: M. Goldmann and J. Thomsen)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wolfgang Kappes (Bochum, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ — Application for registration No 144 074 98

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2020 in Case R 1303/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division in Case B 2 863 929; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union and order the potential intervener (Wolfgang Kappes) to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 July 2020 — SBG v EUIPO — VF International (GEØGRAPHICAL NØRWAY)

(Case T-458/20)

(2020/C 287/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Super Brand Licencing (SBG) (Villeurbanne, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and A. Sion, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark GEØGRAPHICAL NØRWAY — International registration designating the European Union No 933 206

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2020 in Case R 1178/2019-1

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 First Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
—

annul the decision of 18 October 2019 by which PMO decided not to grant the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance, along with, if necessary, the decision of 20 March 2020 by which the defendant rejected the complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations lodged by the applicant; and
—

annul the decision of 15 April 2020 in that it rejects the applicant’s request for review of the decision of the competition selection board of 16 December 2019 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for internal competition COM/03/AD/18 (AD6) — 1 — Administrators, and, if needed, annul that decision of 16 December 2019;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT3)

(Case T-421/20)

(2020/C 287/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz; QC and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GT3 — Application for registration No 14 738 264

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Forth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 in Case R 1609/2019-4

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.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to identify specifically the relevant public;

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to take into account the evidence as to the likely perception of the earlier European Union Trade mark by the relevant public;

— Failure to consider the other elements of the above mentioned Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) objections;

— Failure to apply national rules under Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
3.

Third plea in law: breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. The transfer to another place of employment was contrary to the employer’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, since it was incompatible with several fundamental rights laid down in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. In particular, the following rights have been infringed: — The right to private and family life (Articles 7 and 33) and the right of the daughter, a minor, to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both her parents (Article 24) were infringed, since the applicant’s family would have to live separately. The daughter would remain in Berlin with the father, the applicant would move to Luxembourg alone. — The right to equality before the law (Article 20) and non-discrimination (Article 21) was infringed. As a married EPLO official and mother of a minor daughter, for whom she shares custody with her husband, the applicant is subject to mobility on the basis of which she is to be transferred to Luxembourg. Separated and divorced officials of an EPLO with shared custody of a minor child remain exempt from mobility until the majority of the child, without there being any objective reason for this unequal treatment.
—

In that regard, the applicant relies on the absence of any effective treatment or prophylaxis for the biological agent SARS-CoV-2, the fact that it is a virus that is considered to be highly contagious and which mutates and, therefore, is highly likely to spread to the community and the fact that the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 causes serious conditions and symptoms resulting in severe human disease, presenting a serious hazard to workers.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 August 2020 — T & D Control systems v EUIPO — Sigmatron (Signalling apparatus and devices)

(Case T-503/20)

(2020/C 329/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: T & D Control systems EOOD (Varna, Bulgaria) (represented by: P. Priparzhenski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sigmatron EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design 3065887-0001 (Signalling apparatus and devices)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2020 in Case R 956/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order Sigmatron EOOD to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings, totalling EUR 4 700 in accordance with the cost specification annexed to the application.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 28(1) and 30(1) of Regulation No 2245/2002 and Article 52 of Regulation No 6/2002;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 August 2020 — H&H v EUIPO — Giuliani (Swisse)

(Case T-486/20)

(2020/C 320/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Health and Happiness (H&H) Hong Kong Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: D. Rose, L. Flascher, Solicitors and N. Saunders, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Giuliani SpA (Milan, Italy)

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 Swisse in the colours red, black and white — European Union trade mark No 3 252 152

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2020 in Case R 2185/2019-5

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 Articles 63(2) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of Article 146(7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 18 August 2020 — Kočner v Europol

(Case T-528/20)

(2020/C 339/37)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Marián Kočner (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: M. Mandzák and M. Para, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 100 000, and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject matter of the action is an application under Article 268 TFEU for the award of compensation on the basis of non-contractual liability, in respect of damage caused to the applicant by two harmful events. According to the applicant, the first harmful event consists in the defendant’s processing of the applicant’s personal data without the agreement of a court or independent administrative authority by means of the acquisition and extraction of data from mobile telephones, and also in data leakage from the defendant’s premises (harmful event no. 1). The second harmful event is alleged to consist in the fact that the defendant compiled an official report in which it stated that the applicant is included in the so-called ‘Mafia lists’ (harmful event number 2).

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

1. The first plea in law alleges unlawful conduct of the defendant consisting in the leakage of the applicant’s personal data from the defendant’ holding of it, which is the defendant’s responsibility under Article 38(7) of Regulation No 2016/794. (1) The data leakage from secure mobile telephones infringed rights protected under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the applicant incurred non-material harm causally related to harmful event no. 1, assessed by the applicant at EUR 50 000 in respect of that harmful event.

2. The second plea in law is based on the applicant’s classification in the so-called ‘Mafia lists’, those lists not being governed by any legal provision, whether at the level of EU law or the level of national law, by the Slovak Republic or [another] EU Member State, and that classification of the applicant is an express infringement consisting in the unlawful processing of personal data. Those lists manifestly infringe rights protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant alleges that he incurred damage causally related to harmful event no. 2, 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 L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care and the principle of sound administration, and violation of the right to dignity and infringement of Articles 1 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that by failing to adopt a final decision on the existence of the alleged occurrences of psychological harassment, the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of the Parliament breached the principle of sound administration and its duty of care, thereby violating the human dignity of the applicants.
Action brought on 27 July 2020 — Satabank v ECB

(Case T-494/20)

(2020/C 371/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Satabank plc (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision dated 15 May 2020 by which the ECB refused to take over direct supervision and give instructions to the Competent Person so as to ensure that the Bank is no longer denied access to its offices, information, systems, files, documents, staff and resources;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the ECB erroneously assumed that the requested action is beyond the competence of the ECB and also did not provide an adequate statement of reasons for its decision.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated its obligations pursuant to Art. 6(5)(b) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) and Article 67 of the Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 (2) of the European Central Bank.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle that the ECB has to act in a manner that makes compliance with regulatory obligations possible.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB committed an abuse of power (détournement de pouvoir).

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 August 2020 — Müller v EUIPO (TIER SHOP)

(Case T-535/20)

(2020/C 348/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Müller GmbH & Co. KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: S. Mühlberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark TIER SHOP — Application for registration No 18 022 495

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2020 in Case R 2600/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as the application for registration of EU figurative mark No 18 022 495 was rejected.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5 of the Aarhus Convention, Articles 2 and 8 ECHR, Articles 2 and 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 3(3), Article 9, Article 168(1) and Article 191(1) and (2) TFEU and Articles 6, 7, 23 of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (‘the Air Quality Directive’), as well as of Annex III and Annex XI, point B thereto. — The Commission does not carry out a substantive assessment in the contested decision and accordingly fails to recognise that the Netherlands Government always assesses the air quality along busy roads that traverse build-up areas (such as in Helvoirt) at more than ten metres from the kerbside, as a result of which exceedances of air pollution standards at these locations are not registered, resulting in the known dangers to public health. This practice of the Netherlands is contrary to Annex II, Section C to the Air Quality Directive, which describes the assessment of air quality and the siting of sampling points, specifying in particular that that assessment is to be made at no more than ten metres from the kerbside, in so far as is practicable. — The Commission also fails to recognise that the Netherlands Government classifies the area in question of Helvoirt as a rural area, even though it is indeed quite an urban area, and that the wrong modelling techniques are therefore being applied. This also has the consequence that exceedances of air pollution standards are not determined. — In addition, the Commission fails to recognise that, by this unlawful practice, not only are exceedances not recorded, but that as a consequence no air quality plan has yet been drawn up for the Helvoirt area, even though the Netherlands Government is obliged to do so pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Air Quality Directive. — Lastly, the Commission fails to recognise that, by this unlawful practice, the Netherlands Government adversely affects not only the right of every European Union citizen to access correct environmental information, but also the right of every European Union citizen to life and good health.
Action brought on 11 September 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-577/20)

(2020/C 399/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 14 October 2019 on State aid SA.55394 (2019/N) — Germany — Rescue aid to Condor (1), and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the aid falls outside the material scope of the European Commission’s Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (2), because Condor’s difficulties are the result of an arbitrary allocation of costs within the Thomas Cook group.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the rescue aid does not satisfy the compatibility condition that the aid should contribute to an objective of genuine common interest. The European Commission committed manifest errors of assessment, both regarding the needs of German independent tour operators and travel agencies and the alleged absence of aircraft capacity for the repatriation of stranded passengers during the IATA winter season which is marked by seasonal overcapacity.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to review the satisfaction of the one time last time condition for rescue aid by the Thomas Cook group.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons.

(1) OJ 2020 C 294, p. 3

(2) Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty, OJ 2014 C 249, p. 1