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

Action brought on 21 October 2021 — Mostostal v EUIPO — Polimex — Mostostal (MOSTOSTAL)

(Case T-684/21)

(2022/C 2/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mostostal S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: C. Saettel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Polimex — Mostostal S.A. (Warsaw)

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 MOSTOSTAL — European Union trade mark No 9 329 848

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2021 in Case R 2508/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the European Union trade mark registered on 20 May 2011 under No 9 329 848 valid;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs in accordance with Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 59(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 10 November 2021 — Sunrise Medical and Sunrise Medical Logistics v Commission

(Case T-721/21)

(2022/C 24/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sunrise Medical BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Sunrise Medical Logistics BV (Amsterdam) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and J. Beck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1367 of 6 August 2021 in its entirety from the date it came into force;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1367 of 6 August 2021 (1), the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application. Firstly, the applicants claim that the Commission misapplied the law by not taking into account the United Nations Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities. Secondly, the Commission failed to pay any or sufficient regard to the Convention’s implementation in European Union law in this context, namely, as applied in Case C-198/15 Invamed Group and Others (2), applying instead, the wrong concept of disability. Instead, the contested regulation pays regard to irrelevant criteria derived from instruments made before the Council Decision of 26 November 2009 (3) and the United Nations Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities.

2. Second plea in law, alleging manifest error within the meaning of Case C-463/98 Cabletron (4). The applicants submit that irrelevant considerations were taken into account, and relied on, in determining that the product identified in the contested regulation (in column (3) of the Annex to the contested regulation) must be classified under CN Heading 8703 rather than CN Heading 8713. In addition, and in the alternative, the Commission misclassified the product, which, applying the guidance of the Court in Case C-198/15 Invamed, ought to be classified under CN Heading 8713.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, in particular, a procedural rule intended to ensure that that measures are formulated with due care, compliance with which may influence the content of the measure.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1367 of 6 August 2021 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2021 L 294, p. 1).

(2) Judgment of 26 May 2016, Invamed Group Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, C-198/15, EU:C:2016:362.

(3) Council Decision of 26 November 2009 concerning the conclusion, by the European Community, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2010/48/EC) (OJ 2010 L 23, p. 35).

(4) Judgment of 10 May 2001, Cabletron Systems Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners, C-463/98, EU:C:2001:256.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 October 2021 — NFL Properties Europe v EUIPO — Groupe Duval (DUUUVAL)

(Case T-671/21)

(2022/C 11/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NFL Properties Europe GmbH (Eschborn, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske, D. Habel and M. Tillwich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupe Duval (Boulogne-Billancourt, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark DUUUVAL — Application for registration No 18 066 416

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 August 2021 in Case R 243/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 4 August 2021;

— order the opponent to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 22 November 2021 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — ZTE Deutschland (V10)

(Case T-741/21)

(2022/C 37/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Bölling, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ZTE Deutschland (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark V10 — European Union trade mark No 14 328 892

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2021 in Case R 2101/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as it rejects the applicant’s appeal against the cancellation decision in relation only to the goods smart phones, mobile phones and wearable smart phones;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 due to insufficient differentiation between invalidated goods;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 due to inconsistent argumentation on the public’s perception;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 by finding that there is no intrinsic and inherent characteristic;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 by finding that there is no easily recognizable characteristic;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 October 2021 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — Wellbe Pharmaceuticals (WellBe PHARMACEUTICALS)

(Case T-644/21)

(2022/C 37/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharmadom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: M-P. Dauquaire, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wellbe Pharmaceuticals S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

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 WellBe PHARMACEUTICALS — Application for registration No 17 151 176

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2021 in Case R 1423/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 9 December 2021 — Daw v EUIPO — Sapa Building Systems (alpina)

(Case T-766/21)

(2022/C 64/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sapa Building Systems SpA (Naviglio, 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 figurative mark alpina — Application for registration No 15 123 342

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2021 in Case R 2198/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order Sapa Building Systems SpA to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 33(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest error of assessment resulting in the misapplication of the decision-making process exemption (first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001) and the protection of legal advice exemption (second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001), because the contested decision failed to recognise and grant access on the basis of an overriding public interest. — The Council failed to recognise and grant access on the basis of an overriding public interest. In particular, an overriding public interest exists as the revision of Regulation 1367/2006 is of very significant importance for the future level of access to justice in environmental matters and the contested decision affects the applicant in a particular and significant way in carrying out its mission as an NGO which is serving a public interest.
Action brought on 18 December 2021 — EAA v Commission

(Case T-781/21)

(2022/C 73/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Aluminium Association (EAA) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. O’Connor and M. Hommé, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 3 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784, by which the Commission does not order the collection of provisional duties;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs incurred by this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for annulment of Article 3 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 (1), the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has acted in breach of Regulation 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof, the object and purpose of Regulation 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the established Commission practice to order the collection of provisional duties.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has not complied with the obligation under Article 296 TFEU to state reasons.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not comply with the principles of due process and good administration.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784, of 8 October 2021, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2021 L 359, p. 6).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 8 June 2016, on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 December 2021 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIXFORTE)

(Case T-798/21)

(2022/C 73/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Wachinger and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Helixor Heilmittel GmbH (Rosenfeld, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark HELIXFORTE — Application for registration No 17 234 899

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings/

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2021 in Case R 1645/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 December 2021 — DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem v EUIPO — Užstato sistemos administratorius (Representation of a bottle silhouette and an arrow)

(Case T-774/21)

(2022/C 84/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Götz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Užstato sistemos administratorius VšĮ (Vilnius, Lithuania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trademark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of a bottle silhouette with an arrow) — Application for registration No 14 481 519

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2021 in Case R 117/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

The Board of Appeal wrongly based its ruling on the fact that the applicant failed to prove that its earlier trademark was genuinely used in accordance with its primary function as a sign indicating commercial origin in respect of the goods and services concerned.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission

(Case T-1/22)

(2022/C 84/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (Molteno, Italy) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, P. Gjørtler and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 of 8 October 2021, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China;

— order the European Commission to bear the applicant’s legal costs in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784, (1) the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment concerning injury analysis and causation analysis as well as concerning lack of proper disclosure.

2. Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by the European Commission in the possible existence of significant distortions in a certain country or a certain sector in that country.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784, of 8 October 2021, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2021 L 359, p. 6).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 January 2022 — Piaggio & C. v EUIPO — Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry (Shape of a scooter)

(Case T-19/22)

(2022/C 95/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Piaggio & C. SpA (Pontedera, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and B. La Tella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry Co. Ltd (Taizhou, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union three-dimensional mark (Shape of a scooter) –European Union trade mark No 11 686 482

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2021 in Case R 359/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; in the alternative:

— annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Boards of Appeal for them to set out clearly in which countries the EU mark No 11 686 482 of the applicant is valid and/or has acquired distinctive character and, conversely, in which countries it has not acquired such distinctive character, on the basis of the evidence provided by the proprietor; in any event:

— order the defendant to pay the procedural costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, pursuant to Article 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union;

— order EUIPO and the potential intervener to pay the entirety of the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 January 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Brooks Sports (Representation of a chevron)

(Case T-5/22)

(2022/C 84/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brooks Sports, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of a chevron) — International registration designating the European Union No 1 441 912

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2021 in Case R 910/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 21 January 2022 — Sanrio v EUIPO — Miroglio Fashion (SANRIO CHARACTERS)

(Case T-43/22)

(2022/C 119/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sanrio Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: V. Schmitz-Fohrmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miroglio Fashion Srl (Alba, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SANRIO CHARACTERS — Application for registration No 12 565 974

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2021 in Case R 2460/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to the extent the opposition was upheld and European Union trade mark application No 12 565 974 was rejected and to reject the opposition in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Action brought on 14 January 2022 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-28/22)

(2022/C 109/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, S. Rating and G.-I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 26 July 2021 on State aid SA.63203 (2021/N) — Germany — Restructuring aid for Condor; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed an error of law and that the contested State aid falls outside the material scope of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (1), because Condor Flugdienst GmbH (‘Condor’) is being taken over by a larger business group and its difficulties are not intrinsic and result of an arbitrary allocation of costs.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to demonstrate a market failure and social hardship.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to provide a comparison with a credible alternative scenario not involving a State aid and does not establish that ‘Condor’ has exhausted all market options.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish that the restructuring plan is realistic, coherent and far-reaching and is suitable to restore ‘Condor’s’ long-term viability without relying on further State aid within a reasonable period of time.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish the appropriateness of the State aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish the proportionality of the State aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not adequately review the negative effects of the State aid.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment).

9. Ninth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

10. Tenth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.

(1) Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (OJ 2014 C 249, p. 1-28).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).