ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/56

Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Lions Gate Entertainment v EUIPO (DIRTY DANCING)

(Case T-64/17)

(2017/C 104/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lions Gate Entertainment Inc. (Santa Monica, California, United States) (represented by: C. Hall, Barrister and D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DIRTY DANCING’ — Application for registration No 13 930 102

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 331/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal and before the General Court.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/17

Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA)

(Case T-44/17)

(2017/C 095/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Camomilla Srl (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: M. Mussi and H. Chiappetta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘CAMOMILLA’ — European Union trade mark No 7 077 555

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 in Case R 2250/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision so that CMT’s application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected in full;

— in the alternative, alter the contested decision so that the application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected also in respect of the goods ‘Class 18: articles in these materials (leather and its imitations) not included in other classes, backpacks, key-holders (leather goods), briefcases, wallets, purses not of precious metal, bags, vanity cases, cases and evening bags; Class 25: Clothing, footwear, headgear, gloves, shawls, stoles, bathrobes’;

— in the further alternative, annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs relating to the present proceedings before the Court, and order C.M.T. Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl to pay those relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 15 April 2016 (‘the contested decision’) is unlawful in that it was adopted in infringement of Article 1 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations and of Article 110 of the Staff Regulations in the absence of EEAS general implementing provisions.

The applicants also claim the total absence of any statement of reasons for the dismissal of their complaint against the contested decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/60

Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Jumbo Africa v EUIPO — ProSiebenSat.1 Licensing (JUMBO)

(Case T-78/17)

(2017/C 104/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Jumbo Africa, SL (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: M. Buganza González and E. Torner Lasalle, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ProSiebenSat.1 Licensing GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘JUMBO’ — European Union trade mark No 10 492 131

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2016 in Case R 227/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law: the applicant alleges that the decisions were adopted in a procedure which runs counter to the general principles of legal certainty and the right to a fair hearing as expressed in Article 6 of the ECHR, due, inter alia, to the following: the assessment, evaluation of the evidence and decision were all made by the same party (that is to say, in the context of an inquisitorial system). The decisions were made without being based on a specified description of the offences. The applicant submits that he has been deprived of the possibility of knowing the precise accusations against him and was not given an opportunity to counter the substantive accusations. The applicant has not been allowed, either in person or through a representative, to put questions to those who have accused him or to the secret witnesses who came forward. He has not had sufficient time for preparation. The European Parliament has not taken a position on the applicant’s arguments and evidence and has failed to demonstrate any infringement of the Staff Regulations.
—

annul Council 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 Mr John Numbi;
—

by way of one of the measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 89 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, or otherwise one of the measures of inquiry provided for in Article 91 of those rules, request the EIB to specify whether it has had any contact whatsoever with TELINDUS regarding the procurement procedure — whether before or after the submission of tenders — inter alia for the purposes of obtaining additional explanations as to its technical solution and, if appropriate, order it to produce every document exchanged in that regard; and order the production of every document from the procurement dossier in which the contacts that took place between the EIB and TELINDUS SA regarding the procurement dossier — whether before or after the submission of tenders — were recorded;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/35

Action brought on 8 March 2017 — Marriott Worldwide v EUIPO — Graf (Representation of a winged bull)

(Case T-151/17)

(2017/C 129/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Marriott Worldwide Corp. (Bethesda, Maryland, United States) (represented by: A. Reid, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Johann Graf (Gumpoldskirchen, 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 (Representation of a winged bull) — EU trade mark No 10 511 723

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2017 in Case R 165/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/37

Action brought on 27 March 2017 — CeramTec v EUIPO — C5 Medical Werks (Shape of a hip ball)

(Case T-193/17)

(2017/C 161/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CeramTec (Plochingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck and E. Nicolás Gómez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C5 Medical Werks (Grand Junction, Colorado, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark in pink (Shape of a hip ball) — EU trade mark No 10 214 179

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2017 in Case R 929/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, or, if C5 Medical Werks joins, by the intervener.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/42

Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Menta y Limón Decoración v EUIPO — Ayuntamiento de Santa Cruz de La Palma (Representation of a man in regional costume)

(Case T-183/17)

(2017/C 151/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Menta y Limón Decoración, SL (Argame, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ayuntamiento de Santa Cruz de La Palma (Santa Cruz de La Palma, Spain)

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 (Representation of a man in regional costume) — EU trade mark No 10 822 013

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 510/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the first-instance decision of 28 January 2015 of EUIPO’s Cancellation Division which rejected in its entirety Community mark No 10 822 013 applied for by the Ayuntamiento de Santa Cruz de La Palma;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and also those of the appeal and invalidity proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/31

Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (HP)

(Case T-208/17)

(2017/C 168/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Senetic S.A. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HP Hewlett Packard Group LLC (Houston, Texas, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the letters ‘HP’ — EU trade mark No 52 449

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2017 in Case R 1002/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings before the Court, as well as the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/34

Action brought on 23 March 2017 — Unipreus v EUIPO — Wallapop (wallapop)

(Case T-186/17)

(2017/C 161/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Unipreus, SL (Lleida, Spain) (represented by: C. Rivadulla Oliva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wallapop, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

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 element ‘wallapop’ — Application for registration No 13 268 941

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017 in the Cases R 2350/2015-5 and R 2530/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Deliver a judgment amending the contested decision by rejecting the registration of the European Union mark ‘wallapop’ (No 13 268 941) for the following services in Class 35: ‘Online trading, namely operation of online markets for buyers and sellers of goods and services; online trading services in which sellers post products or services to be offered for sale and purchasing or bidding is done via the Internet in order to facilitate the sale of goods and services by others via a computer network; providing evaluative feedback and ratings of sellers’ goods and services, the value and prices of sellers’ goods and services, buyers’ and sellers’ performance, delivery, and overall trading experience in connection therewith; Providing a searchable online advertising guide featuring the goods and services of online vendors; Providing a searchable online evaluation database for buyers and sellers; Market research services; Research, providing of reports, consultancy and advice relating to market behaviour; Providing of business information relating to goods and/or services, and evaluation and classification of the aforesaid goods and services, and of the purchasers and sellers of the aforesaid goods and/or services; Seeking, compilation, systemisation, processing and providing of business information for others’.

— Order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed various manifest errors of assessment when considering that stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings (SSBWF) of US and EU technical standards are interchangeable — The Commission failed in its duty to assess pertinent evidence in an impartial manner insofar as various factual statements concerning interchangeability in the contested regulation are either inaccurate, contradictory, or misleading. In particular the allegation according to which the only cooperating importer supposedly failed to submit relevant evidence is inaccurate. — The Commission wrongly assumed that SSBWF were double certified according to European and US standards. It exclusively based itself on unfounded last minute assertions by the complaints only appearing for the very first time in the contested regulation itself.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/41

Action brought on 25 April 2017 — Republic of Poland v Commission

(Case T-241/17)

(2017/C 195/55)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/264 of 14 February 2017 excluding from European Union 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 European Union financing expenditure in the amount of EUR 25 708 035,13 incurred by the payment agency accredited by the Republic of Poland;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

— In support of the action, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (1) through the application of a financial correction in relation to expenditure incurred by the Polish authorities as compensation for non-harvesting operations in 2011 in the context of exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector laid down by Regulation No 585/2011, (2) on the basis of a misinterpretation of the law, notwithstanding the fact that that expenditure was carried out by the Polish authorities in accordance with EU legislation, and in particular did not infringe Article 85 of Regulation No 543/2011. (3)

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 of 17 June 2011 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ 2011 L 160, p. 71).

(3) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/37

Action brought on 9 May 2017 — GE.CO.P. v Commission

(Case T-280/17)

(2017/C 213/51)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: GE.CO.P. Generale Costruzioni e Progettazioni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Naticchioni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should, after declaring unlawful the adoption by the European Commission — Office for Infrastructure and Logistics, Luxembourg — of the decision of 7 March 2017 by which the applicant, GE.CO.P. SpA, was excluded for a period of two years from European tendering procedures and the measure was published, annul that decision and all of the acts which stem from it or are conditional upon it, including those of which the applicant is unaware, and order the Commission to pay the costs relating to the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested measure concerns the termination by the Commission of its own motion, on 5 August 2015, of the public works contract No 09bis/2012/OIL — Lot 1 concerning renovation works on two buildings, referred to as the ‘Foyer européen’ located in Luxembourg, awarded to GE.CO.P.

In support of the action, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 8 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1), as well as infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision was not preceded by a proper adversarial procedure. The applicant claims that it was not informed of the commencement of the exclusion procedure and was therefore not in a position to defend itself in the context of the procedure and put forward arguments in its favour before the adjudicating body.

Had the applicant been in a position to defend itself, it would have put forward arguments in its defence which would most likely have resulted in a change in the adjudicating body’s opinion on the matter and a different outcome to the overall proceedings, more favourable to GE.CO.P.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/27

Action brought on 9 May 2017 — Kwizda Holding v EUIPO — Dermapharm (UROAKUT)

(Case T-266/17)

(2017/C 202/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Kwizda Holding GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: L. Wiltschek, D. Plasser and K. Majchrzak, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dermapharm GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Party applying for the mark at issue: Applicant

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘UROAKUT’ — application No 13 854 146

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 in Case R 1221/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the action and amend the contested decision in such a way that the opposition to the EU trade mark application No 13 854 146 UROAKUT is rejected; in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal;

— order the intervener to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/30

Action brought on 17 April 2017 — Balti Gaas v Commission and INEA

(Case T-236/17)

(2017/C 221/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Balti Gaas OÜ (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: E. Tamm and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendants decision of 17 February 2017 Ref Ares(2017)890302 (1);

— order the defendants to bear their costs and pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant submits that the defendants have not ensured that the procedures followed in awarding grants would have complied with the principles of legality, transparency and sound administration and relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging lack of competence.

2. Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of an essential procedural requirement on the ground of failure to give a statement of reasons.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a lack of statement of reasons.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of material accuracy of the statement of reasons.

(1) Decision taken in relation to Commission’s Implementing Decision C(2016)1587 final of 17/03/2016 on amending Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)2080 establishing the multiannual work programme for granting financial aid in the field of trans-European energy infrastructure under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/36

Action brought on 10 May 2017 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Bösel (MONSTER DIP)

(Case T-274/17)

(2017/C 221/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marco Bösel (Bad Fallingbostel, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘MONSTER DIP’ — Application for registration No 13 118 211

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2017 in Case R 1062/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 19 April 2016 in opposition B 2433681;

— reject the opposed mark for all goods and services;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law