ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/51

Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Amicus Therapeutics UK and Amicus Therapeutics v EMA

(Case T-33/17)

(2017/C 104/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Amicus Therapeutics UK Ltd (Gerrards Cross, United Kingdom) and Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (Cranbury, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: L. Tsang, J. Mulryne, Solicitors, and F. Campbell, Barrister)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision, communicated by the defendant to the applicants on 14 December 2016, to release Clinical Study Report AT1001-011 under Regulation 1049/2001/EC;

— in the alternative, remit the decision to the defendant in order to reconsider it, following an opportunity for the applicants to make specific submissions on particular parts of the clinical study report that should be redacted prior to release; and

— order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the clinical study report in question attracts a general presumption of confidentiality for the purposes of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, in light of: (i) the scheme and terms of the relevant EU sectoral legislation; (ii) the obligation on EU institutions to give effect to obligations under Article 39(3) of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement; and (iii) the importance to be attached to the applicants’ fundamental rights to privacy and to property.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/41

Action brought on 17 February 2017 — Recordati Orphan Drugs v EUIPO — Laboratorios Normon (NORMOSANG)

(Case T-103/17)

(2017/C 121/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Recordati Orphan Drugs (Puteaux, France) (represented by: J. Quirin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Normon SA (Tres Cantos, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘NORMOSANG’ — Application for registration No 12 174 926

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2016 in Case R 831/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/40

Action brought on 17 February 2017 — Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (SANTORO)

(Case T-102/17)

(2017/C 121/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano (San Marzano di San Giuseppe, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and E. Truffo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘SANTORO’ — Application for registration No 12 282 141

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 2018/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 misconstruction of the case-law related to the issues in question;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements committed by the Council, in particular infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, infringement of the Council's obligation to state reasons and infringement of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/34

Action brought on 8 March 2017 — Asolo v EUIPO — Red Bull (FLÜGEL)

(Case T-150/17)

(2017/C 129/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Asolo LTD (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: W. Pors, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FLÜGEL’ — EU trade mark No 637 686

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2016 in Case R 282/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity;

— order EUIPO and Red Bull to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/58

Action brought on 13 March 2017 — Sequel Naturals v EUIPO — Fernandes (VeGa one)

(Case T-176/17)

(2017/C 144/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sequel Naturals ULC (Port Coquilam, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: H. Lindström, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carlos Fernandes (Gross-Umstadt, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘VeGa one’ — Application for registration No 12 649 612

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 2466/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/39

Action brought on 10 March 2017 — Emcur v EUIPO — Emcure Pharmaceuticals (EMCURE)

(Case T-165/17)

(2017/C 129/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Emcur Gesundheitsmittel aus Bad Ems GmbH (Bad Ems, Germany) (represented by: K. Bröcker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Bhosari, India)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘EMCURE’ — Application for registration No 12 269 049

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2016 in Case R 790/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/32

Action brought on 17 March 2017 — EM Research Organization v EUIPO — Christoph Fischer and Others (EM)

(Case T-180/17)

(2017/C 161/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: EM Research Organization, Inc. (Okinawa, Japan) (represented by: J. Liesegang, M. Jost and N. Lang, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Christoph Fischer GmbH (Stephanskirchen, Germany), Ole Weinkath (Hünxe-Drevenack, Germany), Multikraft Produktions- und Handels GmbH (Pichl/Wels, Austria), Phytodor AG (Buochs, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International word mark ‘EM’ — No 2 829 851

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 2442/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 145 and the first sentence of Article 57(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

By this action, the Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) challenges the requests made by the Commission by means of its debit note 3241615288/29.11.2016, in relation to participation in the HUMABIO project. By means of that debit note, the Commission requested that ΕΚΕΤΑ reimburse part of the payment received by it for the HUMABIO project, a sum of EUR 64 720,19. The request follows an on-the-spot audit which was carried out by the European Commission at the applicant’s premises.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/31

Action brought on 12 April 2017 — Pfalzmarkt für Obst und Gemüse v EUIPO (100 % Pfalz)

(Case T-220/17)

(2017/C 178/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Pfalzmarkt für Obst und Gemüse eG (Mutterstadt, Germany) (represented by: C. Gehweiler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘100 % Pfalz’ — Application for registration No 15 085 475

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2017 in Case R 1549/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/40

Action brought on 4 April 2017 — SSP Europe v EUIPO (SECURE DATA SPACE)

(Case T-205/17)

(2017/C 161/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SSP Europe GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word elements ‘SECURE DATA SPACE’ — Application No 14 056 998

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 January 2017 in Case R 2467/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision (notified on 9 February 2017);

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/39

Action brought on 20 April 2017 — Dometic Sweden v EUIPO (MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY)

(Case T-235/17)

(2017/C 195/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dometic Sweden AB (Solna, Sweden) (represented by: R. Furneaux and E. Humphreys, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY’ — Application for registration No 14 952 592

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2017 in Case R 1832/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision with respect to the goods and services applied for, for which the decision was upheld;

— annul the EUIPO’s examination dated 10 August 2016 concerning the registrability of the application;

— refer the case back to the EUIPO in order to amend its decision;

— decide on the costs for the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/34

Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Recylex a.o. v Commission

(Case T-222/17)

(2017/C 195/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Recylex SA (Paris, France), Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux (Anderlecht, Belgium), Harz-Metall GmbH (Goslar, Germany) (represented by: M. Wellinger, S. Reinart and K. Bongs, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— reduce the amount of the fine imposed upon them in the decision of the European Commission of 8 February 2017 (C(2017) 900 final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFUE;

— grant the applicants payment terms, and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in not applying to the applicants point 26 (final paragraph) of the Leniency Notice (1) as regards the duration of the infringement.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in not applying to the applicants point 26 (final paragraph) of the Leniency Notice as regards the infringement concerning France.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in applying a specific increase of 10 % in the calculation of the fine based on point 37 of the Fining Guidelines (2).

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in not granting the applicants a reduction of 50 % in the fine pursuant to the first hyphen of point 26 of the Leniency Notice.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination as well as the principle that the fine must be specific to the offender.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Court is requested to use its unlimited jurisdiction to grant the applicant payment terms for any part of the fine still due.

(1) Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2006, C 298, p. 17), as last amended by the Communication from the Commission on Amendments to the Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2015, C 256, p. 1).

(2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/38

Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Swemac Innovation v EUIPO — Swemac Medical Appliances (SWEMAC)

(Case T-287/17)

(2017/C 213/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Swemac Innovation AB (Linköping, Sweden) (represented by: G. Nygren, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swemac Medical Appliances AB (Linköping, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SWEMAC’ — EU trade mark No 6 326 177

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2017 in Case R 3000/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reinstate the EUTM number 006326177 to full validity, including goods and services in classes 10: ‘Surgical and medical apparatus and instruments’ and 42 ‘Research and development services relating to surgical and medical apparatus and instruments’;

— order the other party to pay the costs of the Applicant before EUIPO and the Boards of Appeal, EUR 1 000; and

— order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs of the Applicant before the General Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/20

Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Anastassopoulos and Others v Council and Commission

(Case T-147/17)

(2017/C 202/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Nikolaos Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia, Greece), Aristeidis Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Alexia Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Maria-Myrto Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Sophie Velliou (Kifissia, Greece) (represented by: K. Floros and M. Meng-Papantoni, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought

— Declare the present application admissible and well-founded;

— Uphold the applicants’ claims for damages by awarding the sum of EUR 123 442 to the first applicant, the sum of EUR 61 721 to the three following applicants and the sum of EUR 120 900 to the fifth applicant or, in the alternative, the sums of EUR 38 227,20, EUR 19 107,60 and EUR 37 440 respectively, together with default interest in each case;

— Order the defendant[s] to pay the costs, whatever the outcome of the dispute.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants allege an infringement of the fundamental principle of prohibition of discrimination insofar as it requires different treatment of different situations, and of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), which gives effect to that principle.

They complain, claiming significant financial losses as a result of their State obligations being subject to Law 4050/12, also known as ‘PSI’ (Private Sector Investment), that they received the same treatment (including the same rate of ‘haircut’) as legal persons, in particular banks and specialised funds, despite their fundamental differences.

They hold, firstly, the Eurogroup President and/or the Eurogroup as such responsible for this, since they prohibited not only the exemption of natural persons from the ‘haircut’ but also from any later compensatory measure, and, secondly, the Commission, which gave its agreement and consent to such an infringement of the abovementioned principle and of Article 21 of the Charter, despite the obligation place on it by Article 17 TEU, as interpreted by the judgment of 20 September 2016, Ledra Advertising and Others v Commission and ECB (C-8/15 P to C-10/15 P, EU:C:2016:701).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/45

Action brought on 18 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (6000)

(Case T-302/17)

(2017/C 231/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘6000’ — EU trade mark No 13 112 545

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 656/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/31

Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Ecolab Deutschland and Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann v ECHA

(Case T-243/17)

(2017/C 221/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (Monheim, Germany) and Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the application admissibble and well-founded;

— annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) concerning the inclusion of the company Sasol Chemie GmbH & Co. KG, as active supplier for the substance 1-Propanol on the list provided by Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 (1) (the ‘Article 95 List’) for product types 1, 2 and 4;

— order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings.

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 an infringement of Article 95(1), second paragraph, of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — The applicants put forward that ECHA has failed to follow the legal conditions for the inclusion of a company such as Sasol in the Article 95 List as provided for in Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, as it was not possible for Sasol to have submitted a complete dossier to ECHA. According to the applicants, its dossier cannot have included either a copy of the Comet Assay test or a letter of access granting reference rights to that test.

2. Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination — The applicants put forward that by accepting the dossier submitted by Sasol for the purpose of Article 95 List inclusion as complete, ECHA has treated companies in a similar situation differently without objective justification in breach of the principle of non-discrimination.

3. Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the level playing field established by Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 as well as the creation of unfair competition — The applicants claim that by including Sasol on the Article 95 List, ECHA has failed to apply the rules under Articles 62 and 63 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 which are designed to ensure a level playing field between those companies such as the applicants which have taken part in the 1-Propanol review and those, such as Sasol, which have not.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ L 167, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/49

Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Lion’s Head Global Partners v EUIPO — Lion Capital (LION’S HEAD global partners)

(Case T-310/17)

(2017/C 231/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Lion’s Head Global Partners LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Nöske, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lion Capital LLP (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word elements ‘LION’S HEAD global partners’ — International registration No 996 979

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 February 2017 in Case R 1477/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 February 2017 (Case R 1477/2016-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Lion’s Head Global Partners LLP and Lion Capital LLP and reject the opposition;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of Protocol No. 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (‘the protocol’). This plea is divided into four parts. — First part, relating to the scope of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol. — Second part, relating to the purpose of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol. — Third part, relating to the traditional protection by the Parliament of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol. — Fourth part, alleging infringement of Mrs Le Pen’s immunity under Article 8 of the protocol.