ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First ground of appeal, alleging an error in law, a distortion of the facts and a failure to provide adequate reasons, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) held, in paragraph 25 of the judgment under appeal, that the possibility of reassigning the other party to the proceedings to a different post would have made it possible for the latter not to be dismissed.
Action brought on 7 October 2016 — Pebagua v Commission

(Case T-715/16)

(2016/C 441/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Asociación de la pesca y acuicultura del entorno de Doñana y del Bajo Guadalquívir (Pebagua) (Isla Mayor, Spain) (represented by: A. J. Uceda Sosa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested implementing regulation;

— in the alternative, annul the inclusion of the species Procambarus clarkii in the list adopted by that regulation;

— order the applicant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 of 13 July 2016 adopting a list of invasive alien species of Union concern pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2016 L 189, p. 4).

In support of its action, the applicant submits that, as regards the species Procambarus clarkii, the requirements laid down in Article 4 of Regulation 1143/2014 were not met and a risk assessment under the terms set out in Article 5(1) of that regulation was not carried out.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 475/22

Action brought on 24 October 2016 — Generis — Farmacêutica/EUIPO — Corpak MedSystems (CORGRIP)

(Case T-744/16)

(2016/C 475/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Generis — Farmacêutica, SA (Amadora, Portugal) (represented by: J. Paulo Sena Mioludo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Corpak MedSystems, Inc. (Buffalo Grove, Illinois, United States)

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: EU word mark ‘CORGRIP’ — Application for registration No 12 437 919

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 July 2016 in Case R 2443/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— maintain the decision of the Opposition Division of 15 October 2015 in Opposition B 002334129;

— upheld the Opposition B 002334129;

— refuse in its entirety the EU Trademark Application No. 012437919 ‘CORGRIP’;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the Appellant.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/27

Action brought on 6 October 2016 — La Patrouille v EUIPO — Alpha Industries (AEROBATIX)

(Case T-710/16)

(2016/C 462/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: La Patrouille (Pantin, France) (represented by: A. Lakits-Josse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alpha Industries, Inc. (Chantilly, Virginia, United States of America)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘AEROBATIX’ — Application for registration No 13 285 952

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2016 in Case R 2344/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision inasmuch as it rejected the mark applied for in respect of the goods ‘clothing, shoes; headgear’ and authorise registration of the mark applied for in respect of those goods;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Lack of likelihood of confusion

— The Board of Appeal based its finding of a likelihood of confusion, in essence, on the alleged intellectual resemblances, yet they do not immediately strike the consumer.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/55

Action brought on 14 November 2016 — Hanso Holding v EUIPO (REAL)

(Case T-798/16)

(2017/C 006/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hanso Holding AS (Tomasjord, Norway) (represented by: M. Wirtz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘REAL’ — Application for registration No 14 020 093

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2016 in Case R 2405/2015-2

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 6/43

Action brought on 2 November 2016 — Euro Castor Green v EUIPO — Netlon France (Concealed trellis)

(Case T-756/16)

(2017/C 006/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Euro Castor Green (Bagnolet, France) (represented by: B. Lafont, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Netlon France (Saint Saulve, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: European Union design No 001 197 966-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11/08/2016 in Case R 754/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the application, and its annexes, are admissible;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/40

Action brought on 2 November 2016 — Oakley v EUIPO — Xuebo Ye (Representation of a silhouette in the shape of an ellipse)

(Case T-754/16)

(2017/C 014/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Oakley, Inc. (Foothill Ranch, California, United States) (represented by: E. Ochoa Santamaría and V. Rodríguez Pombo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Xuebo Ye (Wenzhou, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of a silhouette in the shape of an ellipse) — Application for registration No 13 088 191

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31/08/16 in Case R 2608/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible together with all the associated documents and the corresponding copies;

— rule that the evidence offered may be submitted;

— grant the application, annulling the contested decision and refusing the application for registration of EU trade mark No 13 088 19, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea, alleging infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) by reason of the generalised nature of the collections allowed under the US regulatory regime. Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1250 of 12 July 2016 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-US Privacy Shield (‘the contested decision’) committed such an infringement by failing to draw the conclusion that the US regulatory regime is in particular contrary to the essence of the fundamental right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that, in finding that the tax rulings could be a new aid, the contested decision errs in fact and law and is based on inadequate reasoning. In support of this plea, the applicant submits as follows: first, that the Commission erred in law in not concluding from the outset that, should the practice of tax rulings or the individual tax rulings constitute State aid, they would be an existing aid; second, that the Commission erred in fact in stating that section 42 of the Income Tax Act of 2010 is the legal basis of the tax rulings; and third, that the decision lacks reasoning when claiming that the tax rulings practice constitutes new aid, an assertion that is contradicted by the claim that the rulings practice amounts to a ‘de facto scheme’.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 3(2) and 3(5) of the Basic Regulation and Article 3.1 of the ADA, distorted the evidence before it and made manifest errors of assessment, by wrongly assessing the injury indicators and not carrying out an objective examination of the state of the Union industry. — The Applicant puts forward that the Commission relied only on selected economic indicators of the state of the Union industry and neglected key indicators which would have revealed a different, more positive state of the Union industry. — The Applicant further puts forward that the Commission took a biased approach favoring its injury findings and distorting evidence before it by failing to examine the ‘free’ and ‘captive’ markets of the product concerned as a whole in violation of its duty to conduct an objective evaluation under Article 3(2) of the Basic Regulation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/37

Action brought on 28 September 2016 — Enrico Colombo and Giacomo Corinti v Commission

(Case T-690/16)

(2017/C 022/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Enrico Colombo SpA (Sesto Calende, Italy) and Giacomo Corinti (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: R. Colombo and G. Turri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the award decision (details and content unknown) communicated by note of 20 July 2016, Ref. Ares (2016) 371182, in which the European Commission (JRC — Ispra site management) awarded the contract in procedure JRC/IPR/2016/C.4/0002/OC concerning a framework agreement for works to construct and maintain water pipes and district heating/cooling substations at the Joint Research Centre in Ispra to the tender submitted by the concession holder;

— annul the note of 20 July 2016 Ref. Ares (2016) 371182, in which the European Commission (JRC — Ispra site management) communicated the result of the tendering procedure;

— annul the minutes of the award committee of 13 May 2016 and 28 June 2016;

— order, primarily, that compensation be awarded for the harm suffered, in kind, including by means of a declaration of invalidity, annulment or ineffectiveness of the contract, whose content and details are unknown, signed on 19 August 2016 by the Commission and the concession holder, the latter being subsequently replaced;

— order, in the alternative, that commensurate compensation be paid for the harm suffered, equivalent to EUR 500 000,00or whatever greater or lesser amount the Court considers fair, together with interest and monetary indexation to the date of actual payment.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law: (i) infringement of Articles 105 and 107 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1), (ii) infringement of the Lex specialis concerning the tender in question, (iii) infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the right to due process, and (iv) misuse of power in the present case.

The applicants claim in that regard that the tender submitted by the concession holder should have been excluded on the ground that it does not meet the requirements of legal capacity and technical requirements imposed by the Lex specialis.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/56

Action brought on 23 November 2016 — Monolith Frost v EUIPO — Dovgan (PLOMBIR)

(Case T-830/16)

(2017/C 022/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Monolith Frost GmbH (Leopoldshöhe, Germany) (represented by: E. Liebich and S. Labesius, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dovgan GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘PLOMBIR’

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 in Case R 1812/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision pursuant to Article 65(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

— infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/46

Action brought on 7 December 2016 — Damm v EUIPO — Schlossbrauerei Au-Hallertau Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz (EISKELLER)

(Case T-859/16)

(2017/C 038/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sociedad Anónima Damm (Barcelona, Spain) (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: Schlossbrauerei Au-Hallertau Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz GmbH & Co. KG (Au-Hallertau, Germany)

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: figurative mark containing the word element ‘EISKELLER’ –EU trade mark application No 12 204 426

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2016 in Case R 2428/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Schlossbrauerei Au-Hallertau Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/26

Action brought on 19 December 2016 — Xiaomi v EUIPO — Apple (MI PAD)

(Case T-893/16)

(2017/C 046/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Xiaomi, Inc. (Beijing, China) (represented by: T. Raab and C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MI PAD’ — Application for registration No 12 780 987

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 in Case R 363/2016-1

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 of EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
7.

The seventh plea in law is based on documents from professional and other credible bodies. — The action also draws attention to the fact that the EU, by means of the agreement at issue, has caused, both in Greece and in Turkey, the formation of an enormous mass of people, who live in conditions of degradation and are completely without rights, where they have not already suffered mistreatment from the security forces. — Last, the action is based on the claim that that the EU, faced with a human and social catastrophe, has manifestly failed to fulfil its legal, social and international obligations.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) through misinterpretation or possible misapplication thereof.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/44

Action brought on 23 December 2016 — Hesse v EUIPO — Wedl & Hofmann (TESTA ROSSA)

(Case T-910/16)

(2017/C 053/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Mils/Hall in Tirol, Austria)

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 containing the word elements ‘TESTA ROSSA’ –EU trade mark No 7 070 519

Proceedings before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 68/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and also declare EU trade mark No 7 070 519 revoked in respect of the following goods: Class 21 — Household and kitchen containers; Glassware, Porcelain, in particular tableware; Glass beverage ware; Class 25 — Clothing, namely aprons, shirts, polo shirts and t-shirts; Headgear;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s property rights, in so far as the dispute underlying the proceedings initiated against the European Commission before the Court of Justice of the European Union was designed to have the applicant’s property rights recognised in order to obtain compensation. In that regard, the applicant criticises the Court of Justice for having, in dismissing the appeal, confirmed and definitively rendered res judicata the false decision which was imposed by the General Court by its order in Case T-429/09.
Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 103(7)(h) of Directive 2014/59/EU (1), Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (2), the first sentence of Article 6(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3), Article 16 and 20 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality due to the application of the multiplier of 0.556 for the IPS (Institutional Protection Scheme) — Indicator

The applicant claims in the context of the third plea in law that the defendant had not fully applied the IPS-Indicator with respect to it. The protection offered by an institutional protection scheme applies to all member institutions fully and equally. Discrimination between the institutions at the level of IPS-Indicators is inconsistent with the system and arbitrary.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/56

Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-499/17

( Official Journal of the European Union C 330 of 2 October 2017 )

(2017/C 402/74)

The Notice in Case T-499/17 Esfera Capital Agencia de Valores v Commission and SRB should read as follows:
—

annul Article I.4.1 of the defendant’s decision of 12 December 2016 (Reference: FINS-2017-31) concerning the reduction of the pre-financing amount to 33 % of the specified maximum amount and ordering that a guarantee be lodged;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/31

Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Forest Pharma v EUIPO — Ipsen Pharma (COLINEB)

(Case T-36/17)

(2017/C 070/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Forest Pharma BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Holman, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ipsen Pharma SAS (Boulogne Billancourt, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘COLINEB’ — Application for registration No 13 191 671

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 October 2016 in Case R 500/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016 (OJ 2016 L 312, p. 26), excluding from financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes from financing the amount of EUR 660 202,73 relating to the expenditure declared by the Portugal under the technical assistance heading of the POSEI programme for the Azores in the financial years 2012 and 2013;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), in particular Article 23 thereof, and of Article 17 of the Protocol (No. 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and breach of the principle requiring the administration to hand down decisions only on the basis of legally admissible grounds, by which is meant grounds which are relevant and not vitiated by manifest errors of assessment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/46

Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Franmax v EUIPO — R. Seelig & Hille (her- bea)

(Case T-97/17)

(2017/C 112/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Franmax UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: E. Saukalas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: R. Seelig & Hille OHG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘her- bea’– Application for registration No 12 689 964

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 371/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law