ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/54

Action brought on 01 March 2018 — HMV (Brands) v EUIPO — Our Price Records (OUR PRICE)

(Case T-129/18)

(2018/C 161/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: HMV (Brands) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Hicks, and N. Zweck, Barristers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Our Price Records Ltd (London)

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 elements ‘OUR PRICE’ — Application for registration No 13 636 998

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 838/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— order Our Price Records Limited to pay the costs (if it intervenes in this case); AND EITHER

— allow HMV’s opposition in its entirety OR

— remit the case for consideration by EUIPO in light of the annulment of the contested decision.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/40

Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Wehrheim v ECB

(Case T-100/18)

(2018/C 152/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Christine Wehrheim (Offenbach, Germany) (represented by: N. De Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul: — the decision to reject the claim for compensation for the loss suffered as a result of having withdrawn her [expatriation allowance] (introduced on 10 May 2017) and dating from 3 July 2017; — in so far as necessary, the express decision rejecting her appeal (brought on 3 September 2017) against that decision, which dates from 21 December 2017;

2. order the defendant to pay compensation claimed by the applicant in her claims, as follows: — the difference of remuneration for as long as she will employed within the institution under her permanent staff contract, in the amount of EUR 700,53 per month from the month of April 2017; — relocation costs in addition to the EUR 1 079,10 already accepted, namely an additional EUR 1 000; — in respect of psychological harm suffered, the mount of EUR 2 000; — together with interest at the statutory rate until full payment;

3. order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the defendant administration has failed to fulfil its obligations regarding good administration and assistance by failing to comply with its duty to have regard for the welfare of staff and by creating an expectation which is clearly untenable with regard to the applicant and which consists of granting an expatriation allowance although she did not meet, initially, the conditions required by the Staff Regulations to do so. That fault, it is claimed, caused damage which has a direct causal link with the failure by the institution to fulfil its obligations.
—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 12 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 12 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/72

Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles)

(Case T-192/18)

(2018/C 161/90)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (Altdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: International registration No DM/073118-3 designating the European Union

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2018 in Case R 1244/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal and declare the effect of the international registration of design DM/073118-3 in the European Union to be null and void;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b), of Regulation No 6/2002;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/35

Action brought on 2 March 2018 — Chrome Hearts v EUIPO — Shenzhen Van St. Lonh Jewelry (Representation of a cross)

(Case T-137/18)

(2018/C 166/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Chrome Hearts LLC (Hollywood, California, United States) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shenzhen Van St. Lonh Jewelry Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

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 (Representation of a cross) — Application for registration No 13 845 871

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2017 in Case R 766/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO (and Intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

— Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the right to a fair hearing

The applicant complains that a premature definitive decision was reached, despite it being known that, without fault of the applicant, it was objectively impossible on the date of the decision for the documents proving appropriate use of funds to be submitted. Further, the objective impossibility of the provision of further information and evidence — for which the applicant was not responsible — was only temporary in nature.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties and of the legal provisions to be applied in their implementation, in so far as the second applicant is to be regarded as the addressee of the contested decision. In this respect it is submitted that the Commission cannot require an undertaking with its seat in the United States of America to submit information and that it is not permitted to give incorrect information to that undertaking with regard to the possibility of the imposition of pecuniary penalties.
2.

A second plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the Commission and that, by failing to carry out a sufficiently careful examination of abnormally low tenders, the Commision infringed Article 110(5) of the Financial Regulation, Article 151 of 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) (‘the implementing regulation’), the obligation under Article 41(2) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) to have due regard for the principle of sound administration and point 15.3 of the Instructions.
Case T-208/18: Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Nessim Daoud and Others v Council and Others

Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Nessim Daoud and Others v Council and Others

(Case T-208/18)

Parties

Applicants: Magdy Milad Nessim Daoud (Blainville, Canada), Larsennar Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) and Maxim Zakharchenko (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: A. Markides, M. Ioannides, C. Velaris and C. Velaris, lawyers, A. Robertson, QC and G. Rothschild, barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup (represented by the Council of the European Union) and European Union (represented by the European Commission)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court;

or in the alternative:

— declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants;

and in any event:

— order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-147/18, APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging discrimination against the applicant by the defendant on the basis of her gender, nationality and trade union membership. The applicant repeatedly applied for a higher position at the Agency. Notwithstanding her extensive education, command of several foreign languages, excellent annual appraisals and continuing efforts to improve her qualifications, the applicant was never promoted. The reasons for this state of affairs are discriminatory. Following the applicant’s repeated contact with the defendant concerning the acts of harassment and discrimination suffered by her, the defendant proposed that the applicant go on a mission, for which she made all the necessary preparations, including learning a foreign language from scratch to the level of being able to communicate in that language, and then the defendant cancelled the mission four days prior to departure. The defendant justified the cancellation of the mission on the grounds of the applicant’s contact with a trade union.
Case T-242/18: Action brought on 18 April 2018 — VV v Commission

Action brought on 18 April 2018 — VV v Commission

(Case T-242/18)

Parties

Applicant: VV (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 19 June 2017 and, in so far as necessary, the rejection of the applicant’s claim of 18 January 2018;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the selection board of Open Competition EPSO/AD/322/16 — Administrators in the field of audit (AD 5/AD 7) (OJ 2016 C 171A, p. 1) not to admit her to that competition since she does not hold a university diploma attesting to completed studies of at least 3 years in the fields set out in the notice of that competition.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging an insufficient statement of reasons of the contested decision.
Case T-272/18: Action brought on 27 April 2018 — EBM Technologies v EUIPO (MobiPACS)

Action brought on 27 April 2018 — EBM Technologies v EUIPO (MobiPACS)

(Case T-272/18)

Parties

Applicant: EBM Technologies Inc. (Taipei City, Taiwan) (represented by: J. Liesegang, M. Jost and N. Lang, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MobiPACS’ — Application for registration No 16 400 061

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2018 in Case R 2145/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Case T-291/18: Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Biedermann Technologies v EUIPO (Compliant Constructs)

Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Biedermann Technologies v EUIPO (Compliant Constructs)

(Case T-291/18)

Parties

Applicant: Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG (Donaueschingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Jacob, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Compliant Constructs’ — Application for registration No 16 125 461

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 in Case R 1626/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and order registration;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Case T-340/18: Action brought on 31 May 2018 — Gibson Brands v EUIPO — Wilfer (Shape of a guitar)

Action brought on 31 May 2018 — Gibson Brands v EUIPO — Wilfer

(Shape of a guitar)

(Case T-340/18)

Parties

Applicant: Gibson Brands, Inc. (Nashville, Tennessee, United States) (represented by: K. Hughes, Solicitor, A. Renck and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hans-Peter Wilfer (Markeneukirchen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of a guitar) — European Union trade mark No 9 179 953

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2018 in Case R 415/2017-2

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 and the Other Party before the Board of Appeal in the event that it intervenes in the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Case T-321/18: Action brought on 18 May 2018 — Serenity Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — Gebro Holding (NOCUVANT)

Action brought on 18 May 2018 — Serenity Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — Gebro Holding (NOCUVANT)

(Case T-321/18)

Parties

Applicant: Serenity Pharmaceuticals LLC (Milford, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gebro Holding GmbH (Fieberbrunn, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark NOCUVANT — Application for registration No 13 053 434

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2018 in Case R 584/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 27 January 2018 in Opposition No. B 002437922;

— order EUIPO and Gebro Holdings GmbH to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
Case T-332/18: Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (MARRY ME)

Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (MARRY ME)

(Case T-332/18)

Parties

Applicant: Marry Me Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Theado, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MARRY ME’ — Application for registration No 15 958 226

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 in Case R 806/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the ECB’s assessment of the ‘failing or likely to fail’ criterion’ in respect of the applicant and its subsidiary ABLV Bank Luxembourg was erroneous and deficient in a number of regards.
Case T-354/18: Action brought on 6 June 2018 — KID-Systeme v EUIPO — Sky (SKYFi)

Action brought on 6 June 2018 — KID-Systeme v EUIPO — Sky (SKYFi)

(Case T-354/18)

Parties

Applicant: KID-Systeme GmbH (Buxtehude, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SKYFi — Application for registration No 12 189 502

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2018 in Case R 106/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 8(1), 46, 47, 67, 70, 71, 94 and 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament;
Case T-356/18: Action brought on 7 June 2018 — Volvo Trademark v EUIPO — Paalupaikka (V V-wheels)

Action brought on 7 June 2018 — Volvo Trademark v EUIPO — Paalupaikka (V V-wheels)

(Case T-356/18)

Parties

Applicant: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Göteborg, Sweden) (represented by: T. Dolde, lawyer and M. Hawkins, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paalupaikka Oy (Iisalmi, Finland)

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: Application for European Union figurative mark V V-WHEELS — Application for registration No 14 439 053

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2018 in Case R 1852/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 72(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Case T-347/18: Action brought on 1st of June 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva and Biotech3D v Commission

Action brought on 1st of June 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva and Biotech3D v Commission

(Case T-347/18)

Parties

Applicants: Laboratoire Pareva (Saint Martin de Crau, France) and Biotech3D Ltd & Co. KG (Gampern, Austria) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— annul the European Commission’s Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/613 ( 1 ) of 20 April 2018 approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 4 under Regulation 528/2012 ( 2 ) (the ‘Contested Act’); and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-337/18, Laboratoire Pareva v Commission.

( 1 ) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/613 of 20 April 2018 approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 4 (OJ 2018, L 102, p. 1)

( 2 ) Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012, L 167, p. 1)
Case T-368/18: Action brought on 15 June 2018 — ETA Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Grupo Bimbo (ETI Bumbo)

Action brought on 15 June 2018 — ETA Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Grupo Bimbo (ETI Bumbo)

(Case T-368/18)

Parties

Applicant: ETA Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Eskişehir, Turkey) (represented by: D. Canadas Arcas, P. Merino Baylos, D. Gómez Sánchez and N. Martínez de las Rivas Malagón, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico, Mexico)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant in the action before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ETI Bumbo — Application for registration No 14 895 585

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2018 in Case R 1459/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Case T-399/18: Action brought on 27 June 2018 — TrekStor v EUIPO (Theatre)

Action brought on 27 June 2018 — TrekStor v EUIPO (Theatre)

(Case T-399/18)

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hongkong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Theatre — Application No 16 374 886

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2018 in Case R 2238/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
Case T-383/18: Action brought on 26 June 2018 — Sta*Ware EDV Beratung v EUIPO — Accelerate IT Consulting (businessNavi)

Action brought on 26 June 2018 — Sta*Ware EDV Beratung v EUIPO — Accelerate IT Consulting (businessNavi)

(Case T-383/18)

Parties

Applicant: Sta*Ware EDV Beratung GmbH (Starnberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Bölling and M. Graf, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Accelerate IT Consulting GmbH (Ahlen, 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 figurative mark businessNavi — EU trade mark No 9 155 698

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2018 in Case R 434/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as it annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division of 16 February 2017 (Cancellation No 12 336 C) and declared that EU trade mark No 9 155 698 businessNavi (figurative mark) should remain registered for the following services in Class 42: Updating of computer software, consultancy in the field of computer hardware, computer software consultancy, computer systems analyses, computer systems design, data management on servers, computer programming services, computer consultancy (information technology services), computer programming, hardware and software consultancy, implementation of computer programs on networks, installation and maintenance of software for internet access, installation of computer programs, configuration of computer networks using software, performance monitoring and analysis of network operations, server administration, technical project management in the field of computer processing;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law