ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/33

Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale

(Case T-270/17)

(2017/C 231/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, Agent and by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale Srl (Oricola, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of EUR 625 793,42 in relation to the Grant Agreement for partners No 620108 ‘LOSITA-LOw Subsonic Investigation of a large complete Turboprop Aircraft’, plus the amount of EUR 3 240,41 as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,5 % for the period between 7 February 2017 and 1 April 2017;

— order the defendant to pay EUR 60,01 per day by way of interest from 2 April 2017 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on on the following plea in law.

The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to implement project LOSITA and by failing to provide CSJU with the relevant reports and deliverables, in accordance with Article II.2 Annex II of the Grant Agreement.

Moreover, the defendant has failed to carry out the work to be performed as identified in Annex I therefore violating its obligations under Article II.3 lett. a) e) and h) of Annex II of the Grant Agreement.

Accordingly, the applicant terminated the Grant Agreement on the basis of Article II.38 Annex II of the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of EUR 625 793,42 that had already been paid by the coordinator to the defendant in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Indeed the pre-financing remains the property of the applicant until final payment.

The facts giving rise to Revoind Industriale S.r.l.’s obligations, as beneficiary of the Grant Agreement, are widely undisputed in the present case and the defendant’s objections are generic, incomplete and lack of any supporting element, thus appear to be completely unfounded.

Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/43

Action brought on 15 May 2017 — VSM v EUIPO (WE KNOW ABRASIVES)

(Case T-297/17)

(2017/C 231/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: VSM . Vereinigte Schmirgel- und Maschinen-Fabriken AG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: M. Horak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘WE KNOW ABRASIVES’ — Application for registration No 15 063 522

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2017 in Case R 1595/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Breach of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a manifest error of law relating to the non-ability of non-EU/EEA carriers to operate on intra-European routes. The applicant puts forward that the European Commission (i) wrongly found in Articles 1(1) and 1(4) of the contested decision that the applicant had participated in an infringement or infringements on routes within the EEA and between airports within the EU and airports in Switzerland on which it had no legal ability to provide airfreight services; (ii) overlooked or misunderstood the international and EU legal regimes governing aviation traffic rights; (iii) wrongly applied the relevant case law in finding that there were no ‘insurmountable barriers’ to the applicant offering services on intra-European routes and thus wrongly identifying the applicant as a potential competitor on those routes. According to the applicant, each and all comprise manifest errors of assessment and manifest errors of law, and individually or collectively provide sufficient grounds for the annulment in its entirety of the contested decision in its entirety, or, in the alternative of Articles 1(1) and 1(4) of that decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/42

Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Lion’s Head Global Partners v EUIPO — Lion Capital (Lion’s Head)

(Case T-294/17)

(2017/C 231/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration No 997 073 designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘Lion’s Head’

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 February 2017 in Case R 1478/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject the opposition;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging that, even if the aid scheme at issue were not to constitute an existing aid scheme, the Commission was not entitled to carry its investigation back beyond the limitation period of 10 years preceding 25 November 2008, the date on which the Commission sent a request for information to the French authorities. Article 17 of Regulation No 2015/1589 provides that the limitation period is to be interrupted only by action taken by the Commission or by a Member State, acting at the request of the Commission. Thus, the applicants are of the opinion that the Commission was entitled to carry its examination back only until 25 November 1998.
—

annul Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in whole for a violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness and the principle of equal treatment in accordance with its first plea; for lack of jurisdiction over air transport from airports outside the EEA to airports within the EEA in accordance with its second plea (in primary order); for a violation of Article 49 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport and the Fining Guidelines (1) in accordance with its fourth plea (in primary order); or
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/31

Action brought on 1 June 2017 — Campbell v Commission

(Case T-312/17)

(2017/C 249/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Liam Campbell (Dundalk, Ireland) (represented by: J. MacGuill, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 7 April 2017 refusing the applicant access to documents concerning infringement proceedings initiated against Lithuania for alleged non-implementation of Directive 2010/64/EU. (1)

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging the failure by the defendant to conduct a concrete assessment of the request for access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001, in breach of relevant case-law.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the defendant’s unlawful reliance on certain general presumptions relating to the disclosure of documents, in breach of the principles identified in the relevant case-law.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to process a specific and effective examination of the risk for each document, likewise in breach of relevant case-law.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to carry out a specific and effective examination of potential partial access in breach of the case-law.

5. Fifth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment by the defendant regarding the existence of an overriding public interest, in breach of the principles in the case-law.

(1) Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ 2010, L 280, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/44

Action brought on 5 June 2017 — Bielawski v EUIPO (HOUSE OF CARS)

(Case T-364/17)

(2017/C 249/59)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Marcin Bielawski (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘HOUSE OF CARS’ — Application for registration No 15 172 638

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2017 in Case R 2047/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; or

— amend the contested decision by finding that there is no absolute ground for refusal in regard to the mark applied for;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are unlawful and are vitiated by irregularities, because: — they do not contain any of the essential information envisaged in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013; that is to say, they lack information relating to the procedural guarantees in the investigation, to the persons involved in the investigation, to the hearing of the applicant’s legal representatives, or to the preliminary legal qualification; — they reject the responsibility of the competent authorities in an unreasoned and contradictory manner; — OLAF failed to fulfil its duty to conduct the investigation objectively and impartially and in accordance with the principle of presumption of innocence; — incorrect information is included in the Final Report because of the lack of a preliminary investigation or because of omissions in the preliminary investigation; — the Community legislation in the field of anti-dumping duties was infringed and misapplied; — the Community legislation and the legislation of the Republic of Taiwan concerning the obligation imposed on the Bureau of Foreign Trade of Taiwan to verify the origin of the goods which it certifies were infringed and misapplied; — Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code was infringed and misapplied; — the Treaties and the legal rules relating to their application, as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, specifically Article 41 thereof, were infringed.
—

amend the ways in which consent is obtained from the persons who appear on those cigarette packets in such a way that the persons who will appear on cigarette packets consent to the publication of their real name and personal medical data so that there can be no confusion and in order that any other source of uncertainty can be avoided with regard to the persons who appear on those cigarette packets, and ensure that personal and medical data form an integral part of the link that persons who wish to know the identity/medical history of the subjects who appear on cigarette packets may consult;
—

in the alternative, if the General Court does not annul Decision No C(2017) 1742 final in its entirety on the basis of its first, second and third pleas in law: — first, — annul Article 1, first paragraph, Article 1(1)(c), 1(2)(c), 1(3)(c) and 1(4)(c) of Decision No C(2017) 1742 final, in that the single and continuous infringement established against it is based on inadmissible evidence submitted by Lufthansa in connection with its application for immunity from fines, and the reasons given for it, Article 3(b) of the decision in that it imposes on it a fine of EUR 182 920 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of that fine, in accordance with its first plea in law, — annul Article 1, first paragraph, Article 1(1)(c), 1(2)(c), 1(3)(c) and 1(4)(c) of Decision No C(2017) 1742 final, in that it excludes from the scope of the single and continuous infringement established against it the airlines referred to in the reasons for the decision as being involved in the infringement, and the reasons given for it, Article 3(b) of the decision in that it imposes on it a fine of EUR 182 920 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of that fine, in accordance with its second plea in law, — annul Article 1, first paragraph, Article 1(2)(c) and 1(3)(c) of Decision No C(2017) 1742 final, in that finds that the single and continuous infringement established against it includes the airfreight services within the EEA (EEA inbound traffic), and the reasons given for it, Article 3(b) of the decision in that it imposes on it a fine of EUR 182 920 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of that fine, in accordance with its third plea in law, — secondly, annul Article 1, first paragraph, Article 1(1)(c), 1(2)(c), 1(3)(c) and 1(4)(c) of Decision No C(2017) 1742 final, in that it finds that the refusal to commission the freight forwarders constitutes a separate element of the single and continuous infringement established against it, and the reasons given for it, Article 3(b) of the decision in that it imposes on it a fine of EUR 182 920 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of that fine, in accordance with its fourth plea in law, — and, thirdly, annul Article 3(b) of Decision No C(2017) 1742 final, in that it imposes on it a fine of EUR 182 920 000 on the ground that the calculation of that fine includes its freight tariffs and 50 % of its revenue in respect of freight services into the EEA (EEA inbound revenue) (in accordance with its fifth plea in law), overestimates the seriousness of the infringement established against it (in accordance with its sixth plea in law), establishes an erroneous duration of infringement against it (in accordance with its seventh plea in law) and applies an insufficient fine reduction under the regulatory regimes (in accordance with its eighth plea in law), and the reasons given for it, and reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, that fine to an appropriate amount;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/59

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

(Case T-426/17)

(2017/C 277/83)

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 figurative mark including the word element ‘EFUSE’ — Application No 15 463 003

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2017 in Case R 1881/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/33

Action brought on 11 July 2017 — Laboratoires Majorelle v EUIPO — Jardin Majorelle (LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE)

(Case T-429/17)

(2017/C 309/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoires Majorelle (Paris, France) (represented by: G. Odinot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jardin Majorelle (Marrakech, Morocco)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE’ — Application for registration No 11 371 655

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2017 in Case R 1238/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant registration of the Community trade mark ‘LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE’ in respect of: Class 3: Soaps; Cosmetics; Cosmetics; Washing preparations for personal deodorising purposes or personal hygiene; Cosmetic preparations for skin care; Non-medicated skin care preparations; Skin cleaning preparations; Skin conditioners; Class 5: Pharmaceutical preparations for skin care; Dietetic substances adapted for medical use; Medicinal herbs; Dietary supplements and nutritional supplements; Dietetic supplements for medical purposes; Health food supplements; Pharmaceutical preparations; Class 10: Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments, artificial limbs, eyes and teeth; Orthopaedic articles; Suture materials; Surgical apparatus and instruments; Medical apparatus and instruments;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

annul Commission Decision C(2017) 3051 final of 2 May 2017 on a request for confidential treatment submitted by Nexans France and Nexans pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables) in so far as it rejects the Applicants’ confidentiality claims as regards the material that they claim in Case T-449/14 was obtained illegally (so-called ‘Category I Claims’), and
—

(D) On the merits: declare void/unlawful the act adversely affecting the applicant consisting of the dismissal dated 22 December 2016 headed ‘note to the attention of Ms catalina stancu’ which reached the applicant on 24 January 2017, on all of the grounds set out, with immediate restoration of the employment relationship and an order requiring the defendant to pay compensation consisting of remuneration that has accrued between the date of dismissal and the date of delivery of the judgment. In the alternative, in the event that the applicant cannot be reintegrated into her work post, order ERCEA to pay compensation for lost earnings up to the expiry of the contract (January 2018) in the amount of EUR 39 000;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 318/20

Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Foodterapia v EUIPO — Cloetta Italia (DIETOX)

(Case T-486/17)

(2017/C 318/26)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Foodterapia, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Erdozain López and J. Galán López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cloetta Italia Srl (Cremona, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘DIETOX’ — Application for registration No 13 072 798

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2017 in Case R 1611/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, of the principle of transparency, of the principle to act with a certain care, of the duty to respect confidentiality as well as alleging manifest error of appraisal.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 330/18

Action brought on 11 August 2017 — Next design+produktion v EUIPO — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuuna)

(Case T-533/17)

(2017/C 330/23)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Next design+produktion GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of ‘nuuna’) — Application for registration No 10 772 606

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2017 in Case R 1448/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2017;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 1(1) Regulation No 207/2009 and of the principle of autonomy;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/41

Action brought on 16 August 2017 — VF International v EUIPO — Virmani (ANOKHI)

(Case T-548/17)

(2017/C 347/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: T. van Innis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ken Virmani (Munich, 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: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘ANOKHI’ — Application for registration No 13 025 382

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2017 in Case R 2307/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) Regulation No 207/2009;
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging disregard of the interests of the service and a manifest error of assessment, in so far as there was no test of candidates’ knowledge of Dutch even though the unit was a Dutch-speaking unit. In this connection, the applicant raises an objection of illegality pursuant to Article 277 TFEU vis-à-vis the internal vacancy notice in the light of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations. As that notice does not require a perfect command of Dutch, it is contrary to Article 7 of the Staff Regulations. Consequently, the applicant requests that the unlawfulness of that notice be acknowledged incidenter tantum in the present proceedings. Lastly, he argues that, whereas the other translation services within the institutions may rely on a Head of Unit having a perfect command of the language of translation, this is not the case for Dutch. Therefore, that language will be treated differently in relation to other languages, in breach of Article 1 of Regulation No 1/1958, which accords the same dignity to all languages.