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

Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ v EUIPO — Krasnyj Octyabr (Representation of a lobster)

(Case T-254/20)

(2020/C 215/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: I. Lukauskienė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Krasnyj Octyabr (Moscow, Russia)

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 lobster) — European Union trade mark No 15 948 185

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 March 2020 in Case R 1916/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Misapplication of the right to be heard in conjunction with Articles 94(1) and 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Misapplication of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Misapplication 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;

— Misapplication 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;
—

where necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the present case, order the European Parliament to disclose the opinions issued by the legal service of the European Parliament, which were allegedly delivered on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, without prejudice to the precise date, and in any event before the adoption of the decision of the European Parliament Bureau of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2018/C 466/02, OJ 2018 C 466, p. 8);
—

The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not, in adopting the contested decision, act with due care, since before adopting the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence the applicant submitted, which supports his case, and it relied primarily on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigation in the Ukraine.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 May 2020 — Hijos de Moisés Rodríguez González v EUIPO — Ireland and Ornua (La Irlandesa 1943)

(Case T-306/20)

(2020/C 247/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hijos de Moisés Rodríguez González, SA (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: J. García Domínguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ireland and Ornua Co-operative Ltd (Dublin, Ireland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark La Irlandesa 1943 — European Union trade mark No 12 043 436

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 in Case R 1499/2016-G

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the other parties to the proceedings, if appropriate.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) and Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 May 2020 — Electrodomesticos Taurus v EUIPO — Shenzhen Aukey E-Business (AICOOK)

(Case T-328/20)

(2020/C 240/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Electrodomesticos Taurus, SL (Oliana, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shenzhen Aukey E-Business Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the EU word mark AICOOK No 17 174 236

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2020 in Case R 2212/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the use of the opposing trade mark to have been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7;

— refuse registration of trade mark No 17 174 236 on account of its similarity to the opposing mark;

— and, subsidiarily, to avoid registration of that trade mark, declare that the use of the opposing trade mark has been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7;

— order EUIPO’s Opposition Division to adopt a decision in relation to opposition B 3006619 (MUE No 17 174 236 AICOOK) finding that the use of the opposing trade mark has been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 May 2020 — Crevier v EUIPO (Air deodorizing apparatus)

(Case T-276/20)

(2020/C 247/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jeffrey Scott Crevier (Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States) (represented by: M. Kime, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Design: Application for registration No 5 652 872

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 in Case R 2396/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision;

— set aside the decision of the Examiner appealed against in respect of rejection of the application for restitutio in integrum as a whole;

— grant of restitutio in integrum, alternatively, refer the matter back to EUIPO with appropriate directions to EUIPO;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of title VIII, ie Articles 62-78, of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of chapters VII–XIX, Articles 38-84 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002;

— Infringement of the EU Treaty;
Action brought on 28 May 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-335/20)

(2020/C 247/60)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš, O. Serdula and J. Vláčil, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Article 1 of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) CCI 2014CZ06RDNP 001 of 30 March 2020, which suspends interim payments linked to the Rural Development Programme of the Czech Republic for the period 2014-2020 and related to the expenditure incurred in the periods between 16 October 2018 and 31 December 2018 (notified under number C (2020) 1857 final);

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy. (1) The applicant alleges that the Commission incorrectly takes the view that the subsidy to which the suspended payment relates was provided in breach of national legislation. However, there could not have been any infringement of the national legislation concerned since that legislation does not apply to the type of subsidies which the suspended payment concerns.

(1) OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on the 1st of June 2020 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Giuliani (IALO TSP)

(Case T-333/20)

(2020/C 255/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

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 IALO TSP — Application for registration No 17 676 271

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2020 in Case R 2107/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs; in the alternative, if the other party before the Board of Appeal intervenes, order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 165(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Articles 32(f) and 39(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 166(4)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Articles 32(f) and 39(5) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

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

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in the failure to state reasons in the contested decision of the Board of Appeal;
—

join the proceedings within the meaning of Article 68(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court with actions concerning the same order M.8871, which, because of the substantive link, are cumulative and form a single decision terminating the proceedings;
—

annul the decision of the President of the EIB dated 27 January 2020 and communicated to the applicant by email on 18 February 2020, by which the applicant was informed that her complaint following the Dignity at Work Procedure, was rejected;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Europull (GREEN COAST)

(Case T-361/20)

(2020/C 255/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Europull Srl (Carpi, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark GREEN COAST — EU trade mark No 14 936 694

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 March 2020 in Case R 1555/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the applicant’s appeal, it confirms the Cancellation Division’s decision No 13 595 C declaring the invalidity of the mark and confirms the cancellation of EU trade mark No 14 936 694 GREEN COAST (figurative), in Class 25;

— order any party or parties who oppose this application to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— The contested decision infringes the regulations on the substantiation of the earlier right (Italian mark with application No MO1997C000283 and Registration No 0001247661), in essence, in paragraph 22 of that decision, by finding that right to be substantiated, and also in paragraphs 15 to 21, which contain the main reasons for that conclusion;

— Infringement of Article 12(2)(a) and Article 2(2)(b)(i) — to which it refers — and also Article 7(2)(a)(ii) — mutatis mutandis — of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 June 2020 — Kozhuvchanka uvoz-izvoz Kavadarci v EUIPO (NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER)

(Case T-357/20)

(2020/C 271/53)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Drushtvo za proizvodvsto, trgovija i uslugi Kozhuvchanka d.o.o. uvoz-izvoz Kavadarci (Kavadarci, Republic of North Macedonia) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘NASHE MAKEDONSKO PILSNER BEER MACEDONIAN PREMIUM BEER’ — Application for registration No 17 967 530

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 in Case R 1729/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— allow the action and declare that the trade mark application may proceed to registration.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 June 2020 — Moloko Beverage v EUIPO — Nexus Liquids (moloko)

(Case T-383/20)

(2020/C 262/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Moloko Beverage GmbH (Göppingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Wieland, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nexus Liquids GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘moloko’ — European Union trade mark No 16 415 838

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2020 in Case R 1485/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and register European Union trade mark No 16 415 838 also for the goods: tobacco and tobacco products, including tobacco substitutes; flavourings and solutions for vaporisers for personal use and electronic cigarettes

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and Nexus Liquids GmbH to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— 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;
7.

Seventh part, alleging breach of the right to self-determination, since: — first, by using the expression ‘the people concerned’, Decision 2019/217 and the agreement concluded by that decision deny the national unity of the Sahrawi people as a subject of the right to self-determination; — second, while the amending agreement concluded by it organises the export of its natural resources to the European Union, which are defined as being of Moroccan origin, Decision 2019/217 denies, by its very nature, the sovereign rights of the Sahrawi people over its natural resources and deprives it of its own means of subsistence; — third, as regards the territorial components of the right to self-determination, on the one hand, by concluding, with the Kingdom of Morocco, an international agreement applicable to the part of Western Sahara that is under Moroccan occupation, Decision 2019/217 breaches the right of the Sahrawi people to respect for the territorial integrity of its national territory, by denying the separate and distinct status of that territory, and endorses its illegal division by the Moroccan ‘Berm’. On the other hand, by defining products from Western Sahara as being of Moroccan origin, the agreement concluded by Decision 2019/217 constitutes a breach of the separate and distinct status of Western Sahara, since it has the effect of concealing those products’ true country of origin.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Riviera-Airport v EUIPO — Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (RIVIERA AIRPORT)

(Case T-398/20)

(2020/C 271/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aeroporto di Villanova d’Albenga SpA (Riviera-Airport) (Villanova d’Albenga, Italy) (represented by: G. Casucci, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (Nice, France)

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 RIVIERA AIRPORT in colour — European Union trade mark No 16 392 731

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2020 in Case R 2174/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision to:

— allow the applicant’s appeal, — grant in its entirety the applicant’s cancellation application No. 20 824 C to declare the trade mark at issue invalid, — order the European Union trade mark proprietor to pay the applicant’s costs before of the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division, — alternatively remit the case to the Cancellation Division to address Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— order the payment of the applicant’s fees and costs.

Pleas in law

— Failure to interpret the correct ruling of bad faith application;

— Wrong and partial analysis and evaluation of the relevant indicia required in the overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application;

— Failure to consider all the other relevant indicia and the available evidence of the bad faith according to the required overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application;

— Wrong interpretation and enforcement of Article 12(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 to the case at issue;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT5)

(Case T-422/20)

(2020/C 287/56)

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 GT5 — Application for registration No 14 738 272

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 in Case R 1600/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and other party to bear their 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;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and of the right to sound administration, since the contested decision and Annexes I and II thereto did not contain an adequate statement of reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
—

It is argued that the decisions of 17 September 2019 and 3 April 2020 of the EEAS are not sufficiently motivated, which is contrary to the duty of the administration to give reasons for its decisions (Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 18 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 July 2020 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (GT8)

(Case T-420/20)

(2020/C 287/54)

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 GT8 — Application for registration No 14 738 281

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 in Case R 1611/2019-4

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.

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;
—

pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable: — Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; — Articles 4(2), 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; — Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;