ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/38

Action brought on 5 June 2017 — Fenyves v EUIPO (Blue)

(Case T-375/17)

(2017/C 256/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Klaudia Patricia Fenyves (Hevesvezekény, Hungary) (represented by: I. Monteiro Alves, 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 ‘BLUE’ — Application for registration No 15 287 907

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2017 in Case R 1974/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— remit the trade mark application to the Office for registration to proceed;

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

Plea in law
—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) (‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05)’), and in any event to the extent that that decision concerns the applicant; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/59

Action brought on 5 July 2017 — Item Industrietechnik v EUIPO (EFUSE)

(Case T-427/17)

(2017/C 277/84)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Item Industrietechnik GmbH (Solingen, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and M. Vitt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘EFUSE’ — Application No 15 463 011

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2017 in Case R 1882/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law: by adopting the restrictive measures against the applicant, the Council seriously infringed provisions of law protecting the applicant. The applicant thereby suffered significant non-material damage, for which he must receive compensation. — The applicant brought successful actions for annulment against his inclusion in the sanctions lists. The General Court annulled those legal acts by final judgments of 6 September 2013 in Cases T-42/12 and T-181/12 and of 16 September 2015 in Case T-45/14, insofar as they concerned the applicant. The General Court thereby found that the Council had in each case failed to establish any grounds that could have justified the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists and therefore committed manifest errors of assessment and failed to comply with its duty of diligence. — According to the case-law of the General Court (Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. v Council, Case T-384/11, judgment of 25 November 2014), which the Court of Justice has since confirmed (Case C-45/15 P, judgment of 30 May 2017), this constitutes a serious infringement both of the substantive, protective provisions of the respective enabling bases and also of the fundamental rights of the person concerned, in particular the right to effective legal protection. — Annulment alone of the legal acts in question does not constitute sufficient compensation. The far-reaching social, professional and private consequences of the unlawful listings of the applicant over the years can be offset only through the payment of compensation.
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of a basic principle of EU law — the principle of subsidiarity.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 318/24

Action brought on 28 July 2017 — Sedes Holding v EUIPO (gratis)

(Case T-496/17)

(2017/C 318/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Sedes Holding AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: K. Ongena and C. Du Jardin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘gratis’ — Application for EU trade mark No 15 950 603

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2017 in Case R 506/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, join the case dealt with in the present application with the action brought against the decision of EUIPO in Case R 507/2017-2 for the purposes of the oral procedure in view of the connection between them;

— declare the action set out in the application to be admissible and well founded, and accordingly: — primarily, annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to register EU trade mark application No 15 950 603 for the figurative mark GRATIS in the trade mark register for all goods claimed under that registration; — in the alternative, annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to register EU trade mark application No 15 950 603 for the figurative mark GRATIS in the trade mark register for ‘perfumery, cosmetic products, fragrances and deodorants for personal use’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/36

Action brought on 21 July 2017 — Fifth Avenue Entertainment v EUIPO — Commodore Entertainment Corporation (THE COMMODORES)

(Case T-459/17)

(2017/C 309/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Fifth Avenue Entertainment LLC (Orlando, Florida, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth, barrister and D. Cañadas Arcas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Commodore Entertainment Corporation (Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘THE COMMODORES’ — Application for registration No 13 370 077

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2017 in Case R 851/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— payment of the appellant’s cost.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of No 207/2009;
11.

Infringement of the right of the shareholders and other holders of securities included in the scope of the write-down and conversion to be heard before adoption of the individual measure, which adversely affects them, of write-down of their assets.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/44

Action brought on 15 August 2017 — L-Shop-Team v EUIPO (bags2GO)

(Case T-561/17)

(2017/C 347/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: L-Shop-Team GmbH (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: A. Sautter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘bags2GO’ — Application for registration No 15 356 901

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 in Case R 1650/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 338/20

Action brought on 26 August 2017 — A & O Hotel and Hostel Friedrichshain v Commission

(Case T-578/17)

(2017/C 338/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: A & O Hotel and Hostel Friedrichshain GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Heise and M. Lindner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2017) 3220 final of 29 May 2017 on the non-fiscal aid measures put in place by Germany in favour of the youth hostel Berlin Ostkreuz gGmbH (and others) — SA.43145 (2016/FC) (OJ 2017 C 193, p. 1); and

— order the Commission 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:

Infringement of essential formal and procedural requirements under Article 108(2) TFEU, in conjunction with Articles 4(4) and 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (1) and the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU

— The Commission infringed the applicant’s procedural rights in so far as its decision, which is the subject of the action, was adopted after merely a preliminary examination, even though the Commission was required to open a formal investigation. The applicant bases this argument on the fact that the Commission, having a duty to carry out an assessment of the information and evidence at its disposal, ought to have been concerned about the compatibility of the non-fiscal aid measures unlawfully put in place by Germany in favour of the youth hostel Berlin Ostkreuz gGmbH (and others).

— In so far as the Commission only inadequately or, moreover, in substantial aspects incorrectly examined the information and evidence giving rise to those concerns in the decision which is the subject of the action, the applicant further argues that the Commission failed to meet its obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in that the defendant, by adopting the decision of 10 October 2016 by which it rejected the request for assistance made by the applicant (‘the contested decision’) disregarded the grounds of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 December 2015, De Loecker v EEAS (F-34/15, EU:F:2015:153). The applicant is also of the opinion that the defendant disregarded the procedure implemented by the Commission Investigating and Disciplinary Office (IDOC) following the judgment of 14 February 2017, Kerstens v Commission (T-270/16, not published, EU:T:2017:74).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/26

Action brought on 24 August 2017 — Mas Que Vinos Global v EUIPO — JESA (EL SEÑORITO)

(Case T-576/17)

(2017/C 357/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Mas Que Vinos Global, SL (Dobarrios, Spain) (represented by: M. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jose Estevez, SA (JESA) (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘EL SEÑORITO’ — Application for registration No 13 502 166

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2017 in Case R 1775/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/20

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Imasa, Ingeniería y Proyectos v Commission and SRB

(Case T-516/17)

(2017/C 357/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Imasa, Ingeniería y Proyectos (Oviedo, Spain) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the following measures:

— Decision (SRB/EES/2017/08) of the Single Resolution Board agreed at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A.

— Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/30

Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Fortischem v Parliament and Council

(Case T-560/17)

(2017/C 369/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fortischem a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented by: C. Arhold, P. Hodál and M. Staroň, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul letter (d) in Annex III, Part I, to Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (1); and

— award the applicant the costs of the action.

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 that the contested provision must be annulled because it infringes the principle of legitimate expectations by depriving the mercury cell production site operators of their possibility to receive an extension for complying with the best available techniques if the conditions under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) are met.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested provision must be annulled because it infringes the principle of proportionality by (i) setting a firm phase-out deadline for mercury cell production well ahead of the deadline ensuing from the applicable international regulation on mercury, without at least providing the possibility of granting extensions/exemptions in specific cases, (ii) promoting legislation which is unable to provide any significant environmental benefits to a wider public but at the same time causing significant disadvantages to the business operators, and (iii) ignoring existing legislation already providing clear rules for phase-out and extensions/exemptions and failing to provide hardship clauses on its own.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested provision must be annulled because it will cause losses for the applicant’s business operations tantamount to a breach of the fundamental right to property under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, being disproportionate to the objectives of the contested provision and capable of being achieved by less restrictive measures.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (OJ 2017, L 137, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/49

Action brought on 20 September 2017 — DNV GL v EUIPO (Sustainablel)

(Case T-644/17)

(2017/C 374/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DNV GL AS (Høvik, Norway) (represented by: J. Albers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Sustainablel’ — Application for registration No 15 372 832

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 in Case R 2/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— register the European Union trade mark application No 15 372 832 ‘Sustainablel’ for all applied for goods and services;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/41

Action brought on 22 August 2017 — Boshab and Others v Council

(Case T-582/17)

(2017/C 374/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Évariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo) and 7 other applicants (represented by: P. Chansay-Wilmotte, A. Kalambay Ndaya and P. Okito Omole, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the restrictive measures at issue to be null and void, namely, — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/904 of 29 May 2017 implementing Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo; — Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/905 of 29 May 2017 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely, in essence, on a single plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vaguely reasoned and significantly vitiated by manifest errors of assessment. According to the applicants, the restrictive measures adopted by the Council against them are unfounded in both fact and law. Moreover, the Council committed several irregularities, each capable of justifying the annulment of the contested acts.
—

Annul the Commission Decision endorsing the prior Decision of the Single Resolution Board, made on the same day, adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A., and which is implemented in Spain by the FROB, in that it sets a payment of EUR 0 in respect of the applicants’ rights in the Banco Popular.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/57

Action brought on 20 September 2017 — Ferri v ECB

(Case T-641/17)

(2017/C 382/70)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Claudio Ferri (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Campagnola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should declare that there has been a failure to carry out the supervisory duties initiated by the note of 24 March 2017 for which, following an exchange of correspondence, the competent department of the ECB stated that it was not required to make provision, claiming that the issue relates to both self-protection and supervisory duties with regard to the adoption of standards for monitoring the conduct of Italian banks.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant claims that the European Central Bank has not performed the supervisory duties incumbent on it with reference to the following:

— Failure promptly to enact the provisions implementing Legislative Decree No 72 of 2015 and subsequently to apply Legislative Decree No 385 of 1993, which has been deemed to continue to apply, in respect of another activity following on from the aforementioned failure by Banca d’Italia to enact those implementing provisions.

— Failure to order Banca d’Italia to initiate, within the State system, an adaptation of the legislation governing litigation in relation to the application of penalties.

— Failure to monitor the suitability of the criteria for assessing the efficiency of the banking system, which are currently clearly framed in relation to very complex and highly-structured banking institutions, and give no indication that they are flexible or in fact suitable.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/49

Action brought on 27 September 2017 – China Construction Bank v EUIPO — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CCB)

(Case T-665/17)

(2017/C 402/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: China Construction Bank Corp. (Beijing, China) (represented by: A. Carboni, J. Gibbs, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupement des cartes bancaires (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark figurative mark containing the word element ‘CCB’ — Application for registration No 13 359 609

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 in Case R 2265/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and remit the EU trade mark application no. 13 359 609 to the EUIPO to allow it to proceed to registration; and

— order EUIPO and any intervening parties in this Appeal to pay their own costs and pay the Applicant’s costs of these proceedings and those of the appeal before the First Board of Appeal in Case R 2265/2016-1 and of Opposition B 2 524 422 before the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation EUTMR by basing its decision on reasons and evidence on which the Applicant had no opportunity to present its comments;

— Infringement of Article 76(1) EUTMR by taking account of facts, evidence and arguments not submitted by either party and evidence which was not filed in the case;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/38

Action brought on 22 September 2017 — Serendipity and Others v EUIPO — CKL Holdings (CHIARA FERRAGNI)

(Case T-647/17)

(2017/C 392/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Serendipity Srl (Milan, Italy), Giuseppe Morgese (Barletta, Italy), Pasquale Morgese (Barletta) (represented by: C. Volpi and L. Aliotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CKL Holdings NV (CV Bussum, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CHIARA FERRAGNI’ in black and sky blue — Registration application No 14 346 795

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 July 2017 in Case R 2444/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Seniority of earlier European Union trade mark No 011841582 ‘Chiara Ferrangni’ filed on 25 June 2013, registered on 10 October 2013;

— Incorrect comparison of the marks at issue;