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

Action brought on 4 September 2022 — Martin Rodrigo v EUIPO — Louis Vuitton Malletier (CALIFORNIA Dreaming by Made in California)

(Case T-542/22)

(2022/C 408/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Andres Carlos Martin Rodrigo (Fuente el Saz de Jarama, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Donoso Romero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France)

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 CALIFORNIA Dreaming by Made in California — Application for registration No 18 224 612

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2022 in Case R 2242/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in all its pronouncements;

— therefore, the opposition must be rejected in its entirety; and consequently the European Union figurative mark application must be granted for all the goods and services;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea, alleging that the Single Resolution Board and the European Commission acted negligently by adopting and approving the resolution of Banco Popular Español, S.A. without having verified and confirmed, in accordance with EU legislation, whether the requirements and preconditions for applying that resolution mechanism had been met and by failing — once that mechanism was agreed upon — to comply with EU legislation on the resolution procedure or with the rights of the shareholders and/or holders of securities in the bank.
1.

First plea in law, alleging the Council disregarded the case law of the Court of Justice held in judgment of 19 November 2019, A. K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland) (C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982), judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland (Disciplinary regime applicable to judges) (C-791/19, EU:C:2021:596), order of 8 April 2020, Commission v Poland (C-791/19 R, EU:C:2020:277) and order of the Vice-President of the Court of 14 July 2021, Commission v Poland (C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:593), and infringed Articles 2 and 13(2) TEU. The applicant further submits under this plea that the Council exceeded its competence to the extent that it purported to determine how Poland should comply with the case law of the Court of Justice concerning the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland (hereafter the ‘Disciplinary Chamber’).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in beige with white horses)

(Case T-545/22)

(2022/C 418/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, R. Wessman and S. Ljungblad, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Schwäbisch Hall, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union pattern mark representing a checked pattern in beige with white horses — European Union trade mark No 18 180 223

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2022 in Case R 1732/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Cancellation Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the proprietor and the cancellation applicant] are similar’;

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

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 September 2022 — Bora Creations v EUIPO — True Skincare (TRUE SKIN)

(Case T-576/22)

(2022/C 424/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bora Creations, SL (Andratx, Spain) (represented by: R. Lange and M. Ebner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: True Skincare Ltd (Ascot, United Kingdom)

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 TRUE SKIN — Application for registration No 18 170 353

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2022 in Case R 1712/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision not to implement the core sections (1) and (2) of the judgment of 16 December 2020 in case T-187/18, VP v Cedefop and, consequently, not to renew the employment contract of the applicant is vitiated by a breach of the obligation pursuant to Article 266 TFEU to comply with the Judgment in Case T-187/18 of 16 December 2020 and a manifest error of assessment.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 October 2022 — Breville v EUIPO (Cooking devices)

(Case T-616/22)

(2022/C 441/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Breville Pty Ltd (Alexandria, Australia) (represented by: F. Caruso, G. Grippiotti, M. Pozzi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Design: Community design No 1 444 467-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2022 in Case R 613/2022-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision and grant the requested restitutio in integrum.

Pleas in law

— Error in law in connection with the time limit to file the application for restitutio in integrum;
Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Cemet (Halime)

(Case T-615/22)

(2022/C 432/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and C. Milbradt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cemet Oy (Helsinki, Finland)

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 figurative mark Halime — Application for registration No 18 241 593

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2022 in Case R 121/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the EUIPO (should it take part as intervener) each bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) by ignoring the fact that the earlier marks were certification marks, not individual marks;

— The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council in its analysis of the likelihood of confusion;

— The Board of Appeal erred under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council when analysing the distinctiveness of the earlier certification marks;

— The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by carrying out an erroneous comparison of the respective goods and services.

(1) OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 September 2022 — ECE Group v EUIPO — ECE Piknik Ürünleri Plastik ve Kömür Üretim Ithalat Ihracat (ECE QUALITY OF LIFE)

(Case T-581/22)

(2022/C 463/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: ECE Group GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske, M. Tillwich and P. Funke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ECE Piknik Ürünleri Plastik ve Kömür Üretim Ithalat Ihracat Anonim Sirketi (Dilovasi/Kocaeli, Türkiye)

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 figurative mark ECE QUALITY OF LIFE — Application for registration No 18 163 717

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2022 in Case R 1384/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the contested decision, so that the opposition is upheld in its entirety and the European Union trade mark application No 18 163 717 is refused in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is procedurally and substantively vitiated because of the following specific defects pertaining to the contested decision: — The contested decision violates Article 22(6) SRMR and Article 28(2) SRMR (1) because (a) the costs do not constitute reasonable expenses properly incurred in connection with the use of the resolution tools or powers; (b) the SRB did not take an appropriate decision with respect to the manner in which the costs are recovered by it and should have imposed the costs on the institution under resolution and therefore indirectly the purchaser; (c) Article 28(2) SRMR only authorises the SRB to give instructions to the national resolution authorities as to aspects of the execution of the resolution scheme whereas the costs referenced by the contested decision are costs associated with the procedure leading to the resolution decision; and (d) the SRMR does not authorise the SRB to obtain legal or other advice at the expense of the supervised entity or its shareholders. — The involvement of external advisors violates Article 41 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides for a right of every person to have his or her affairs handled by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union and not external advisors. — The costs imposed on the applicant by the contested decision would in any case be covered by the regular contributions to the administrative expenditure of the SRB by each supervised institution. — It follows e contrario from the special rules permitting the recovery of expenses for legal counsel in certain circumstances that such costs cannot generally be recovered. — The costs were not properly and reasonably incurred. — Certain costs concern matters of Slovenian law. Only the national authorities and courts are responsible for the interpretation and application of Slovenian law. — Certain costs concern sanction matters which are also outside the competence of the SRB.
1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of law and of assessment as regards the scope of the applicant’s access to review rights under the Aarhus Regulation, due to the Council having: — refused to review the Provisional TACs later replaced by final EU/UK TACs, even though the applicant retains an interest in their review; and — found that the applicant’s pleas that the Council lacked competence and misused its powers in adopting the TAC Regulation were inadmissible for falling outside the scope of Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 November 2022 — López-Ibor Aliño v EUIPO — Dimensión Estratégica Quality Research (LOPEZ-IBOR ABOGADOS)

(Case T-672/22)

(2023/C 7/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Alfonso López-Ibor Aliño (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dimensión Estratégica Quality Research, SL (Madrid)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark LOPEZ-IBOR ABOGADOS — Application No 18 190 205

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2022 in Case R 500/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— stay the present proceedings until a final judgment has been given in the revocation proceedings against the EU trade mark 009566291 ESTUDIO JURÍDICO INTERNACIONAL LÓPEZ-IBOR MAYOR & ASOCIADOS, proceedings, 000053919 C, before EUIPO;

— uphold the action brought against the contested decision and allow the EU trade mark applied for, order the other party to pay the costs;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs and the other party in the event that that party appears in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Incorrect assessment of the proof of use in accordance with Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of law and of assessment as regards essential elements of secondary law and the scope of the Council’s competence to set TACs under Article 43(3) TFEU, due to the Council having committed: — a manifest error of law as regards the alleged impact of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement on the Council’s competence to set TACs in contradiction to the EU’s fisheries legislation; — manifest errors of law as regards the margin of discretion it has to set fishing opportunities, as limited by the overarching MSY Objective of Article 2(2) of the CFP Basic Regulation; and — manifest errors of law and of assessment regarding the limits of its competence under Article 43(3) TFEU.
Action brought on 8 November 2022 — van der Linde v EDPS

(Case T-678/22)

(2023/C 24/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Frank van der Linde (Netherlands) (represented by: C. Forget, lawyer)

Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— confirm the contested decision (1) insofar as the EDPS orders Europol to give the applicant access to all data concerning him in accordance with Article 36(2) of Regulation 2022/991 (2);

— for the rest, annul the decision of the EDPS insofar as it does not offer the applicant sufficient guarantees since it does not provide for any time limit within which it must be executed, no penalty payment, and does not provide for any sufficient sanction with regard to Europol, thereby de facto depriving the applicant of the right of access and of the right to effective judicial protection within the meaning of Articles 8 and 47 of the Charter;

— in the alternative, award the applicant a provisional euro for non-material damage;

— in any event, order EDPS to pay the costs in the amount detailed by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law alleging a breach of Articles 8 and 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

(1) Decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor in complaint case 2020 — 0908 against the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) of 8 September 2022.

(2) Regulation (EU) 2022/991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/794 as regards Europol’s cooperation with private parties, the processing of personal data by Europol in support of criminal investigations and Europol’s role in research and innovation (OJ 2022 L 169, p. 1).
3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error in the presumptions of law in the contested decision, in that, Regime III of the ZFM complies with the requirements to create or maintain jobs in the Autonomous Region of Madeira laid down in Decisions C(2007) 3037 final and C(2013) 4043 final, in Articles 107 and 108 TFEU and in the 2007 Guidelines.
Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Piamark v Commission

(Case T-715/22)

(2023/C 24/83)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Piamark, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: P. Vidal Matos and F. Lança Martins, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that Court should

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III, (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (JO 2022, L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law due to the incorrect identification of the reference system, ignoring the sovereignty of the Portuguese Republic to establish criteria for gaining access to Regime III of the Zona Franca da Madeira (Madeira Free-Trade Zone) and the criteria for verifying compliance with those requirements, in breach of Article 4(2) TEU and Articles 107(1) and 263 TFEU.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the assessment relating to the fulfilment of the requirements for the correct implementation of Regime III of the Zona Franca da Madeira, in that the Portuguese Republic adopted, for that purpose, criteria in accordance with Article 107(1) TFEU.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in an infringement of the duty to give reasons for the contested decision, due to a failure to demonstrate that Regime III of the Zona Franca da Madeira has the potential to affect trade between Member States and distort competition, in breach of Articles 107(1), 263 and 296, second paragraph, TFEU.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in an infringement of the principles of legal certainty and security laid down in Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in the infringement of the right to private property laid down in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 November 2022 — Seamist v Commission

(Case T-699/22)

(2023/C 24/76)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Seamist, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 November 2022 — BIW Invest v EUIPO — New Yorker Marketing & Media International (COMPTON)

(Case T-746/22)

(2023/C 24/104)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: BIW Invest AG (Appenzell, Switzerland) (represented by: E. Mielke, U. Stelzenmüller and J. Weiser, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: New Yorker Marketing & Media International GmbH (Brunswick, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark COMPTON — EU word mark No 14 539 092

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2022 in Case R 1915/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the other party to bear the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of the second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— 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;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 25 November 2022 — Tokareva v Council

(Case T-744/22)

(2023/C 24/102)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maya Tokareva (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and L. Burguin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022, (1) published in the Official Journal on 15 September 2022, in so far as it makes Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 (as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1272 of 21 July 2022, which included the applicant’s name as entry No 1201 in the annex to Council Decision 2014/145) applicable until 15 March 2023;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022, (2) in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name as entry No 1201 in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2014/269;

— order the Council to make a provisional payment of EUR 1 000 000 in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-734/22, Pumpyanskiy v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 149).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 1).