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

Action brought on 9 April 2020 — Tikal Marine Systems v EUIPO — Ultra Safety Systems (Ultra Tef-Gel)

(Case T-192/20)

(2020/C 191/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tikal Marine Systems GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany) (represented by: M. Mahnkopf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ultra Safety Systems Inc. (Mangonia Park, Florida, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Ultra Tef-Gel — European Union trade mark No 15 369 739

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2020 in Case R 2499/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 November 2018;

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the trade mark at issue valid;

— order the defendant and intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 7 April 2020 — JE v Council and Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States

(Case T-180/20)

(2020/C 201/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JE (represented by: N. Forwood, QC)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the Declaration of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union for the Advocates-General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, dated 29 January 2020, as published by the Council under Council document reference XT 21018/20;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant contends that the act adopted by the defendants should be partially annulled on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties and rules of law relation to their application, and for misuse of powers.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 March 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Yuneec Europe (Breeze)

(Case T-158/20)

(2020/C 191/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hongkong, China) (Represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, N. Willich and N. Achilles, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yuneec Europe GmbH (Kaltenkirchen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Breeze — Application No 16 369 613

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2020 in Case R 470/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 15 April 2020 — Stone Brewing v EUIPO — Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) (STONE BREWING)

(Case T-200/20)

(2020/C 201/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stone Brewing Co. LLC (Escondido, California, United States) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Ltd (Burton Upon Trent, 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 trade mark STONE BREWING — Application for registration No 15 423 668

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2020 in Case R 1524/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— make an award of costs in its favour.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71(1)(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 April 2020 — Steinel v EUIPO (MobileHeat)

(Case T-226/20)

(2020/C 201/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Steinel GmbH (Herzebrock-Clarholz, Germany) (represented by: M. Breuer and K. Freudenstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Registration of the EU word mark MobileHeat — Application for registration No 18 029 162

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2020 in Case R 2472/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 May 2020 — Global Chartered Controller Institute v EUIPO — CFA Institute (CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE)

(Case T-266/20)

(2020/C 209/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Global Chartered Controller Institute SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero and T. Barber Giner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for the European Union figurative mark CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE — Application for registration No 15 508 161

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 in Case R 235/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— vary the contested decision and find that the conditions for applying the relative ground for refusal of registration in Article 8(1)(b) of EUTMR are not fulfilled in the present case;

— or, in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant (including the costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal) and order the intervener to pay the costs incurred before the Opposition Division.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 92 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 April 2020 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Pfizer (RUXXIMLA)

(Case T-239/20)

(2020/C 209/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark RUXXIMLA — Application for registration No 17 865 742

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2020 in Case R 1879/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 May 2020 — Eggy Food v EUIPO (EGGY FOOD)

(Case T-287/20)

(2020/C 222/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eggy Food GmbH & Co. KG (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt and R. Böhm, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark EGGY FOOD — Application for registration No 1 795 2953

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 in Case R 1316/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the publication of the application for registration of the EU mark No 1 795 2953;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 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;
Action brought on 28 April 2020 — Sabra v Council

(Case T-249/20)

(2020/C 215/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Abdelkader Sabra (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester, QC, and A. Bradshaw, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested measures insofar as they apply to him;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2).

In support of the action, the applicant contends that his inclusion in the contested measures is a result of manifest errors of assessment by the Council. In particular, the applicant claims that

— he is not a leading businessperson operating in Syria within the meaning of Article 15(1a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 (3);

— he is not associated with the Syrian regime, does not exercise influence over it and poses no risk of circumvention, within the meaning of Article 15(1b) of Council Regulation No 36/2012, and

— he does not provide any support to or benefit from the Syrian regime.

(1) OJ 2020 L 43I, p. 6.

(2) OJ 2020 L 43I, p. 1.

(3) Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Hell Energy Magyarország v EUIPO (HELL)

(Case T-323/20)

(2020/C 240/41)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hell Energy Magyarország Kft. (Budapest, Hungrary) (represented by Á. László and B. Mező, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark HELL — Application for registration No 18 002 048

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2020 in Case R 1712/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to continue the registration process in relation to the rejected goods.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(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 May 2020 — Brillux and Daw v Commission

(Case T-288/20)

(2020/C 222/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Brillux GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) and Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: R. van der Hout, C. Wagner and V. Lemonnier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217, (1) in so far as it concerns the classification and labelling of titanium dioxide;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on nine pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-279/20, CWS Powder Coatings v Commission.

(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/217 of 4 October 2019 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures and correcting that Regulation (OJ 2020 L 44, p. 1).
Action brought on 3 June 2020 — Galván Fernández-Guillén v SRB

(Case T-340/20)

(2020/C 247/61)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: José María Galván Fernández-Guillén (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Romero Rey and I. Salama Salama, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Decision SRB/EES/2020/52 of 17 March 2020 determining whether compensation needs to be granted to the shareholders and creditors in respect of which the resolution actions concerning Banco Popular Español SA have been effected;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to private property, in that Banco Popular had, at the time of the resolution, a positive net worth, which did not justify the applicant being deprived of his shares without compensation.

2. Second plea, alleging infringement of the right to property, in that no clear valuation criteria were applied in granting the resolution of Banco Popular, since the new criteria approved by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/344 (1) which only came into force on 29 March 2018 — that is, eight months after the resolution of Banco Popular — were applied retroactively.

3. Third plea, alleging a lack of impartiality on the part of Deloitte in carrying out Valuation 3, on which Decision SRB/EES/2020/52 relied exclusively, given that the same auditing company carried out Provisional Valuation 2.

4. Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the SRB continues to keep certain information confidential and hidden from the shareholders and creditors of Banco Popular, on the pretext that ‘the disclosure thereof may infringe the Board’s rights of defence in the ongoing litigation’.

(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/344 of 14 November 2017 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the criteria relating to the methodologies for valuation of difference in treatment in resolution (OJ 2018 L 67, p. 3).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 May 2020 — JS v SRB

(Case T-271/20)

(2020/C 247/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JS (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 14 June 2019 decision communicated to the applicant on 17 June 2019 and rejecting his request for assistance of 2 May 2019;

— annul in addition, and so far as necessary, the decision communicated to the applicant on 29 January 2020 rejecting his complaint of 14 September 2019;

— order compensation of the non-material prejudice suffered by the applicant which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 20 000;

— order furthermore compensation of his quantified and evidenced material prejudice evaluated at EUR 77 408;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

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 a breach of Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations and of Article 2.1 of the SRB policy adopted by decision of the plenary session of the SRB of 29 November 2017. (1)

2. Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 7.3 of the said SRB policy.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty of care. With regard to the request for compensation, the applicant relies on the fault committed by the defendant, the damage he suffered and the link between the fault and the damage.

(1) Policy on protecting the dignity of the person and preventing psychological harassment and sexual harassment.
2.

Second plea: the Commission erred in determining that the overall fee structure of the European Investment Fund (EIF) was in line with the fee structure of a comparable market operator of fund-of-funds.
Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO (bittorrent)

(Case T-337/20)

(2020/C 255/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hochmann Marketing GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Jennings, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘bittorrent’ — EU word mark No 3 216 439

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 March 2020 in Case R 187/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Serious error of law, since conversion into an Austrian trade mark is not clearly excluded;

— Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and an arbitrary assumption that the applicant had at no stage made a substantiated claim that use in Austria is to be assumed;

— Infringement of Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Serious procedural error and error of law in so far as the Board of Appeal disregarded EUIPO’s finding and understanding that conversion into a German mark was lawful;

— Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union through repeated disregard for the evidence of use submitted in Case C-118/18 P;

— Procedural error and infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the applicant does have a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings;

— Serious procedural error and error of law for having taken into account the arguments in the intervener’s submission of 23 September 2019 alleging that the applicant’s national trade mark application had been made in bad faith;

— Serious error of law for excluding conversion under Article 139(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the basis of the judgment in Case C-149/11;

— Serious procedural error and error of law, since it was only after the Austrian mark was annulled that EUIPO requested that the applicant set out its position and EUIPO is still yet to express a view on the arguments put forward by the applicant in its conversion application;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Naturstrom v Commission

(Case T-316/20)

(2020/C 247/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Naturstrom AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant's decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the merger ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ compatible with the common market (Case M.8871) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on three pleas in law, which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 June 2020 — Indo European Foods v EUIPO — Chakari (Abresham Super Basmati Selaa Grade One World's Best Rice)

(Case T-342/20)

(2020/C 262/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Indo European Foods Ltd (Harrow, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister and N. Welch, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hamid Ahmad Chakari (Vienna, Austria)

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, in colour, Abresham Super Basmati Selaa Grade One World's Best Rice– Application for registration No 16 860 868

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 in Case R 1079/2019–4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the opposition in respect of all of the goods;

— alternatively, remit the matter to the EUIPO for re-consideration;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal, the appeal before the Board and the Opposition Division.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 mai 2020 — Unger Marketing International v EUIPO — Orben Wasseraufbereitung (Water purifiers)

(Case T-325/20)

(2020/C 255/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unger Marketing International LLC (Bridgeport, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: T. Huber and K. von Seydlitz-Brandl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Orben Wasseraufbereitung GmbH & Co. KG (Wiesbaden, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design No 2 555 425-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2020 in Case R 740/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Unger,

— order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings including those incurred by the applicant, in case the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal should become an intervening party in this case.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;