ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Framery v EUIPO — Smartblock (Transportable building)

(Case T-373/20)

(2020/C 271/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Framery Oy (Tampere, Finland) (represented by: P. Voutilainen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design 3 303 994-00001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2020 in Case R 616/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject the application for declaration of invalidity in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) of that regulation, on the ground that the contested design has individual character and the Board of Appeal erred in the assessment of the individual character of the contested design;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal erroneously accepted a disclosure of an earlier design;

— Infringement of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal failed to state their reasons concerning the acceptance of the disclosure of the earlier design;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 June 2020 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiator for heating)

(Case T-380/20)

(2020/C 271/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tubes Radiatori Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro, M. Balestriero and P. Menapace, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design No 169 370 - 0002 (Radiator for heating)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2020 in Case R 1275/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— find and declare that Community design No 169 370 - 0002, owned by TUBES RADIATORI Srl, is valid in so far as it is new and has individual character;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Esteves Lopes Granja v EUIPO — Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto (PORTWO GIN)

(Case T-417/20)

(2020/C 279/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Joaquim José Esteves Lopes Granja (Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal) (represented by: O. Santos Costa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (Peso da Régua, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark PORTWO GIN — Application for registration No 16 308 462

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2020 in Case R 993/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 July 2020 –Włodarczyk v EUIPO — Ave Investment (dziandruk)

(Case T-434/20)

(2020/C 287/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Piotr Włodarczyk (Pabianice, Poland) (represented by: M. Bohaczewski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ave Investment sp. z o.o. (Pabianice, Poland)

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 featuring the word ‘dziandruk’ in red and grey — EU trade mark No 15 742 091

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 in Case R 2192/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and before the Cancellation Division and Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

— in the alternative, order Ave Investment to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and before the Cancellation Division and Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 July 2020 — GitLab v EUIPO — Gitlab (GitLab)

(Case T-418/20)

(2020/C 279/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GitLab BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Lorente Berges, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gitlab OÜ (Tallinn, Estonia)

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 GitLab — European Union trade mark No 13 751 169

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 May 2020 in Case R 2001/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

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 21 July 2020 — Eggy Food v EUIPO (YOUR DAILY PROTEIN)

(Case T-464/20)

(2020/C 297/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eggy Food GmbH & Co. KG (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark YOUR DAILY PROTEIN — Application for registration No 17 953 235

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 in Case R 2235/2019-5

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 17 953 235;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Data Decision, by requiring the production of so many wholly irrelevant and personal documents (for example: correspondence regarding medical issues relating to employees and their families; correspondence at times of bereavement; documents relating to personal wills, guardianship, childcare and personal financial investments; job applications and references; internal appraisals; and documents assessing security risks to the Facebook campus and personnel), infringes the fundamental right to privacy, the principle of proportionality and the fundamental right to good administration. Therefore, the Contested Data Decision breaches the fundamental rights to privacy, as protected by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Contested Data Decision also infringes the principle of proportionality as it is excessively broad in scope and insufficiently targeted to the subject-matter of the Commission’s investigation.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 July 2020 — LF v Commission

(Case T-466/20)

(2020/C 313/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: LF (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 11 September 2019 by which the applicant was refused entitlement to the expatriation allowance;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 July 2020 — Eurobolt and Others v Commission

(Case T-479/20)

(2020/C 304/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Eurobolt BV (‘s-Heerenberg, Netherlands), Fabory Nederland BV (Tilburg, Netherlands), ASF Fischer BV (Lelystad, Netherlands), Stafa Group BV (Maarheeze, Netherlands) (represented by: S. De Knop, B. Natens and A. Willems, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible;

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/611 of 30 April 2020 re-imposing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (1); and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that by retroactively ‘repairing’ a violation of an essential procedural requirement, Regulation (EU) 2020/611 violates Articles 266 and 264 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the principle of effective judicial protection.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that because it has no valid legal basis, Regulation (EU) 2020/611 violates Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2), Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Treaty on the European Union (‘TEU’) and the principle of good administration.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that by prohibiting repayment and ordering collection of repaid anti-dumping duties, Regulation (EU) 2020/611 violates Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU.

(1) OJ 2020 L 141, p. 1.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).
3.

Third plea in law, alleging discrimination against the applicant who, in his capacity as head of unit, does not enjoy the benefit of Article 30(8) and (9) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and who is, moreover, a victim of the defendant’s refusal to promote any official to grade AD 14. Thus, some officials who are in the same grade as the applicant, but who are not head of unit, may receive a higher salary.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 August 2020 — Makk v EUIPO — Ubati Luxury Cosmetics (PANTA RHEI)

(Case T-501/20)

(2020/C 320/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stefan Makk (Graz, Austria) (represented by: I. Hödl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ubati Luxury Cosmetics, SL (Alcobendas, Spain)

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 PANTA RHEI — International registration designating the European Union No 1 393 404

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2020 in Case R 2337/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and eventually the intervener to pay the costs incurred with the present proceeding before the Court.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 August 2020 — Setarcos Consulting v EUIPO (Blockchain Island)

(Case T-523/20)

(2020/C 339/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Setarcos Consulting Ltd. (Sliema, Malta) (represented by: S. Stafylakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Blockchain Island — Application for registration No 18 027 834

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2020 in Case R 2806/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs relating to the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
—

annul, [first,] the decision of the EEAS rejecting his candidature for the post of Head of the EU Delegation to Korea, notified by a note of 29 October 2019, signed by the Human Resources Director, in that the EEAS refused to state reasons for that decision and, second, the decision rejecting his application for access to documents, notified by an email of the secretariat of the Consultative Committee on Appointments (CCA) of the EEAS, dated 24 January 2020;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 September 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita)

(Case T-561/20)

(2020/C 371/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vieta Audio, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

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 Vita — European Union trade mark No 9 993 361

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2020 in Case R 425/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law
Action brought on 3 September 2020 — QB v ECB

(Case T-555/20)

(2020/C 359/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QB (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

consequently:

— annul the staff report for 2015, drawn up on 8 October 2019;

— in so far as necessary, annul the decisions of 7 February 2020 and 24 June 2020 rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal and complaint respectively;

— order the defendant to pay compensation for non-material damage assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000;

— 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 infringement of Article 266 TFEU and of the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports, in particular in so far as there was no new appraisal in relation to the applicant, but simply a copy and paste of the appraisal in the initial staff report.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports and of the procedure, and infringement of the duty of care, in particular in so far as the applicant’s staff report does not identify any suggestions for improvement and does not set objectives in the manner required by the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested staff report is vitiated by a manifest error in the assessment of the facts in that report.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of the rules regarding State aid, misclassification of the aid as new, unlawfulness of the decision which declares the State aid new and incompatible, and failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons and to observe the principle of proportionality. — The applicant claims in this regard that the defendant wrongly classified the subsidies for public service obligations (PSOs) granted to Adriatica as new aid. According to the applicant, the funding for the public service obligations assumed by Adriatica is part of an aid scheme that was created in 1936 and the subsequent amendments to that aid scheme have not affected its very nature, causing it to become a new aid scheme. — Moreover, the defendant wrongly classified the subsidies for PSOs granted to Adriatica for the period January 1992 to July 1994 in relation to the Brindisi/Corfu/Igoumenitsa/Patras connection incompatible with the internal market. The defendant maintains that the incompatibility of the aid granted to Adriatica results from the involvement of the latter, during that period, in a price-fixing agreement for the tariffs for commercial vehicles on the Brindisi/Corfu/Igoumenitsa/Patras route. — With regard to the second plea in law, the applicant maintains that the defendant did not sufficiently fulfil its obligation to state reasons in accordance with the requirements resulting from the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to the applicant, the contested decision is therefore vitiated by an insufficient statement of reasons preventing the General Court from conducting a review of legality. — The applicant also alleges failure to observe the principle of proportionality.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 108(2) TFEU in relation to exemptions from the payment of certain taxes. — The applicant claims in this regard that the right to the tax exemption at issue is subject to the conditions defined generally for insolvency proceedings and that, as the Commission acknowledges in the contested decision, it is not possible to anticipate, even now, whether the condition of a positive difference between the undertaking’s assets at the beginning of the extraordinary administration procedure, on the one hand, and the residual assets at the end of the extraordinary administration procedure, on the other, will be satisfied. — Therefore, the corporate income tax exemption is fundamentally conditional on the occurrence of future and uncertain events that are such as to have prevented, to date, the consolidation of any advantage for Tirrenia AS and to make it entirely possible, as the Commission acknowledges in the contested decision, that such an advantage might be realised in the future. As a result, in the light of all the conditions laid down by national law that must be satisfied in order to benefit from the advantage in question, it cannot be held that the hypothetical advantage deriving from the tax exemption has been acquired by Tirrenia AS. Consequently, that exemption falls outside the scope of the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and, as a result, is not State aid. — Moreover, assuming that the conditions that must be satisfied in order for the tax exemption in question to apply might materialise in future, it is doubtful that that would be the case when Tirrenia is fully liquidated. — The applicant further states that, even if the measure in question should materialise as an advantage, Tirrenia AS does not take part in trade within the European Union and holds no position on the national market which might be maintained or increased so that the opportunities for undertakings established in other Member States to penetrate the Italian market are reduced as a result.
Action brought on 4 September 2020 — MF v eu-LISA

(Case T-568/20)

(2020/C 399/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MF (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 29 October 2019 terminating the applicant’s contract on the basis that a security clearance could not be issued to him — as such and insofar as it would also contain a decision to refuse access to EUCI;

— insofar as necessary, annul the decision of 26 May 2020 rejecting the complaint;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the termination decision is illegal as a consequence of a violation by the defendant of Article 11(5)(b) of Commission decision and of the eu-LISA security Rules.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 September 2020 — Skechers USA v EUIPO (ARCH FIT)

(Case T-598/20)

(2020/C 390/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Skechers USA, Inc. II (Manhattan Beach, California, United States) (represented by: T. Holman, A. Reid, Solicitors, J. Bogatz and Y. Stone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark ARCH FIT — Application for registration No 18 079 677

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 July 2020 in Case R 2631/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

in the assessment of the competitive situation, the defendant took into consideration the applicant’s market share alone, whereas it should have taken into account several other factors, such as the actual or potential presence of competition for the purposes of Article 34(2) of Directive 2014/25/EU; the defendant failed to take into consideration the fact that four new competitors had joined the market in addition to the three competitors already on the market, as well as the fact that, for that reason, the applicant’s market share would subsequently decrease;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 September 2020 — MP v Commission

(Case T-588/20)

(2020/C 414/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: MP (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 9 February 2020 impliedly rejecting her request that her pension rights be fixed under the rules in force prior to 1 January 2014, confirmed by the decision of 12 February 2020;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging the infringement, by the contested decision, of Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.