ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/45

Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Erdinger Weißbräu Werner Brombach v EUIPO (Shape of a large glass)

(Case T-857/16)

(2017/C 038/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Erdinger Weißbräu Werner Brombach GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: A. Hayn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the three-dimensional mark ‘Shape of a large glass’ — Application for registration No 1 242 704

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2016 in Case R 659/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings;

— hold a hearing.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/33

Action brought on 22 December 2016 — SilverTours v EUIPO (billiger-mietwagen.de)

(Case T-866/16)

(2017/C 053/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SilverTours GmbH (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by: P. Neuwald, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘billiger-mietwagen.de’ — Application No 14 343 099

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 November 2016 in Case R 206/2016-5

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 the first sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/21

Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Ms v Commission

(Case T-435/16)

(2017/C 070/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ms (Castries, France) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

as a result,

— annul the Commission’s decision refusing to communicate personal data concerning the applicant, taken on 16 June 2016;

— order payment of compensation for the non-material harm resulting from the European Commission’s misconduct, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000;

— order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1) and, in particular, of Articles 8, 13 and 20 thereof. The applicant also alleges infringement of the fundamental right of access to personal data and of the right to respect for private life, as well as infringement of the principles of the rights of the defence, equality of arms and the right to good administration. In addition, it argues that the contested decision is vitiated by an unlawful and unfounded statement of reasons. All those illegalities constitute as many instances of misconduct which have caused the applicant real and certain harm.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/30

Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Nf Nails In Vogue v EUIPO — Nails & Beauty (NAILS FACTORY)

(Case T-886/16)

(2017/C 063/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Nf Nails In Vogue, SL (Arganda del Rey, Spain) (represented by: L. Jáudenes Sánchez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nails & Beauty Vertriebs GmbH (Kiel, Germany)

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 containing the word elements ‘NAILS FACTORY’ — Application for registration No 13 528 336

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 202/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action admissible;

— annul the contested decision and uphold the Opposition Division’s decision;

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

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/40

Action brought on 12 January 2017 — Europa Terra Nostra v Parliament

(Case T-13/17)

(2017/C 063/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Europa Terra Nostra e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article I.4.1 of the defendant’s decision of 12 December 2016 (Reference: FINS-2017-30) concerning the reduction of the pre-financing amount to 33 % of the specified maximum amount and ordering the lodging of a guarantee;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law: infringement of the Treaties and of the rules of law relating to their application — The applicant claims, that under Article 134(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1) and Article 206(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012, (2) guarantees are not at all required for low-value grants. — Moreover, the defendant has no interest in obtaining a guarantee because the review request brought against the ‘Alliance for Peace and Freedom’ (APF) is entirely devoid of substance and manifestly unfounded. — In addition, the defendant deliberately delayed the review procedure brought against the APF for half a year and thereby itself occasioned its alleged need for a guarantee. — Furthermore, the measures are disproportionate because the applicant is not in a position to provide guarantees and is threatened with the loss of its economic existence through the withdrawal of the financial assistance, which gives rise to a distortion of political competition. This constitutes a serious infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights to freedom of expression and association (Articles 11 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

2. Second plea in law: misuse of powers In addition, the applicant alleges a misuse of powers by the defendant. It takes the view that the defendant’s measures amount to a purely politically motivated manoeuvre designed to withdraw financial assistance from an unpopular political party, including the foundation affiliated to it, and thereby to manipulate political competition within the European Union.

(1) 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).

(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons The Commission failed to fulfill its obligation to state reasons in classifying as unlawful State aid the legislation on tax on advertisement both in the version amended in 2014 and in the version amended in 2015 without having examined the substantive difference between the two laws. The contested decision did not indicate which legislative exemption allowed an undertaking to enjoy a financial advantage compared with another undertaking in the same position; it did not explain why the progressive rate system was not part of the reference system; it did not indicate what category of undertaking was placed at an exclusive advantage by the system of progressive tax rates in bands and did not indicate why it did not consider the demonstration by the Hungarian authorities of the costs arising for taxable persons and for the tax authorities to be satisfactory.
7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament on the procedure capable of leading to the disqualification of a Member of Parliament from holding office (second subparagraph of Rule 3(4) (new) of those Rules). In the applicant’s view, even though an additional penalty of ineligibility is provided for under French law for the offence with which he is charged, the French Government sent no opinion to the President of the Parliament regarding that offence, as the procedure requires, and no competent body of the Parliament (the President, the Legal Committee, the Assembly) has asked the French Government to provide an explanation. The failure to comply with that essential procedural requirement is sufficient to vitiate the report and the contested decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/58

Action brought on 3 February 2017 — Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO (Fack Ju Göhte)

(Case T-69/17)

(2017/C 104/81)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: E. Saarmann and P. Baronikians, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ — Application for registration No 13 971 163

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 2205/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul Decision No 013971163 of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 25 September 2015;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

First plea in law, based on an objection of illegality directed against Article 42c of the Staff Regulations, infringement of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) and infringement of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations.
—

submit the following preliminary questions to the Court of Justice: (i) In the light of Articles 8(2) and 41(1) of the European Trade Marks Regulation and of Rules 15(2)(b) and 17 of the European Union Trade Marks Implementing Regulation, in an opposition procedure, does the Applicant, as the defendant to the opposition have the right to invoke prior rights, which could constitute prior rights to the earlier trademark used as a prior right in the opposition? (ii) Does the French State have any kind of prior intellectual property right on the word ‘France’ which is not the official name of the French State and which is just a geographical entity? (iii) If the answer to the question (ii) is ‘No’, should the name ‘France’ be considered as a word which is in the public domain and on which no one can claim any intellectual property right? (iv) If the answer to the question (ii) is ‘Yes’, should the fact that the French State as of this day has never claim any rights in the word ‘France’ except against France.com be considered as a discrimination against the Applicant?
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in so far as the defendant failed to take account of the grounds of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 September 2015, Barnett v EESC (F-20/14, EU:F:2015:107) (‘the CST judgment’), for the purposes of adopting enforcement measures. In particular, it is apparent from the grounds for the contested decision that the defendant diverged from the criteria set out in its general implementing provisions (GIP) in order to carry out the alleged re-examination of the applicant’s application. In any event, the contested decision does not remedy the unlawfulness found by the Civil Service Tribunal, namely the lack of identification of the interest of the service in the GIP of the EESC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/37

Action brought on 7 February 2017 — PepsiCo v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (Exxtra Deep)

(Case T-82/17)

(2017/C 121/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: PepsiCo, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

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 word mark ‘Exxtra Deep’ — EU trade mark No 12 161 981

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 November 2016 in Case R 482/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the applicant.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly concluded that the applicants engaged in conduct that has as its object the restriction and/or distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU.
—

annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Ilunga Kampete;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/57

Action brought on 17 March 2017 — M & K v EUIPO — Genfoot (KIMIKA)

(Case T-171/17)

(2017/C 144/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: M & K Srl (Prato, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Genfoot, Inc. (Montreal, Québec, Canada)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘KIMIKA’ — Application for registration No 13 233 391

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2017 in Case R 1206/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— recognize and declare that the recourse presented by the applicant is admissible and well founded; and consequently

— reform the contested decision;

— send the case back to EUIPO for a reforming decision and therefore give way to a definitive registration of the EU trade mark No 13 233 391 even in the classes contested;

— condemn the counterpart to pay fees and costs of the three proceeding.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/23

Action brought on 15 February 2017 — Apple v EUIPO — Apo International (apo)

(Case T-104/17)

(2017/C 129/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors, and G. Tritton, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apo International Co. Ltd (Taipei City, Taiwan)

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 figurative mark containing the word element ‘apo’ — Application for registration No 11 293 628

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 698/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the Applicant’s appeal against the contested decision in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— The contested decision offends against the principle of reformatio in peius;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/36

Action brought on 23 February 2017 — Proximus v Council

(Case T-117/17)

(2017/C 151/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Proximus SA/NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Schutyser, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Council notified to the applicant on 23 December 2016, to award the contract to another tenderer and not to the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the methodology applied to evaluate the price of the offers does not allow to choose the most economically advantageous offer, which is required by European Union law.
First plea in law: infringement of the provisions of the disciplinary code established by the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’)

The applicant claims that his demotion from the post of Director of the Operations Department to that of Senior Expert without any career opportunity is not a legitimate transfer, but a punitive demotion that would have required prior disciplinary proceedings in the absence of any other legal basis. Through its actions, the defendant Office therefore infringed the provisions of Article 86 of the Staff Regulations and Annex IX thereto.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/33

Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Romantik Hotels & Restaurants v EUIPO — Hotel Preidlhof (ROMANTIK)

(Case T-213/17)

(2017/C 168/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Romantik Hotels & Restaurants AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. Hofmann and W. Göpfert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hotel Preidlhof GmbH (Naturns, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ROMANTIK’ — EU trade mark No 2 527 109

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2017 in Case R 1257/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as the declaration that EU trade mark No 2 527 109 ‘ROMANTIK’ (a word mark) is invalid is confirmed in that decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) thereof;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/31

Action brought on 16 March 2017 — TestBioTech v Commission

(Case T-173/17)

(2017/C 161/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Smith, QC, and J. Stevenson, barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 9 January 2017 rejecting the applicant’s request for internal review of Commission Implementing Decisions (EU) 2016/1215, (1) (EU) 2016/1216, (2) and (EU) 2016/1217 (3) of 22 July 2016, granting market authorisations under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (4) (the ‘GM Regulation’) in respect of the genetically modified soybeans FG 72, MON 87708 x MON 89788 and MON 87705 x MON 89788, respectively;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies essentially on a single plea in law arguing that the Commission failed to observe the obligations imposed on it by the GM Regulation, in particular Articles 14 and 16 thereof, by failing to conduct the appropriate full safety assessments before granting market authorisation or to ensure effective post-authorisation monitoring.

The Commission was mistaken in relying on the relevant EU law concerning the control of pesticides as it fails specifically to regulate genetically modified organisms.

(1) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1215 of 22 July 2016 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 (MST-FGØ72-2) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2016 L 199, p. 16).

(2) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1216 of 22 July 2016 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 (MON-877Ø8-9 × MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2016 L 199, p. 22).

(3) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1217 of 22 July 2016 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 89788 (MON-877Ø5-6 × MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2016 L 199, p. 28).

(4) Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/45

Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.)

(Case T-252/17)

(2017/C 195/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Robert Bosch GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Simply. Connected.’ — Application for registration No 14 814 032

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 March 2017 in Case R 947/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of the right to be heard and infringement of the principle of an adversarial process.