ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-288/18: Action brought on 4 May 2018 — M. I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT)

Action brought on 4 May 2018 — M. I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT)

(Case T-288/18)

Parties

Applicant: M. I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, Nebraska, United States) (represented by: M. Montañá Mora and S. Sebe Marin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT — Application for registration No 14 290 589

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28/02/2018 in Case R 1658/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and -if applicable- the Opponent to jointly and severally pay all the costs of these proceedings.

Plea in law
Case T-269/18: Action brought on 2 May 2018 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf (ZARA)

Action brought on 2 May 2018 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf (ZARA)

(Case T-269/18)

Parties

Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ffauf SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ZARA — Application for registration No 8 929 952

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 February 2018 in Joined Cases R 359/2015-5 and R 409/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal, upheld in part the intervener’s appeal and rejected the application for the European Union word mark ZARA No 8 929 952 for the following goods and services: Class 29 — preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes, milk products; edible oils and fats; Class 30 — rice, tapioca, sago, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery products, yeast, baking-powder, salt, mustard, vinegar, sauces (condiments), spices, rice-based snack food; Class 31 — fresh vegetables; Class 32 — fresh juices; Class 35 — retailing and wholesaling in shops, selling via global computer networks, by catalogue, by mail order, by telephone, by radio and television, and via other electronic means of preserved, frozen, dried and cooked vegetables; edible oils, rice, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, vinegar, sauces (condiments); Class 43 — restaurant services (food), self-service restaurants, cafeterias;

— order EUIPO and, if appropriate, the intervener (Ffauf SA) to pay the costs arising from this action before the General Court;

— order the opponent, FFAUF, S.A, to pay the costs arising from Joined Cases R 359/2015-5 and R 409/2015-5 before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 15(1) and 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 22(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2868/95;
Case T-256/18: Action brought on 24 April 2018 — Arezzo Indústria e Comércio v EUIPO (SCHUTZ)

Action brought on 24 April 2018 — Arezzo Indústria e Comércio v EUIPO (SCHUTZ)

(Case T-256/18)

Parties

Applicant: Arezzo Indústria e Comércio SA (Belo Horizonte, Brazil) (represented by: A. Sebastião and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SCHUTZ’ — Application for registration No 15 723 265

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2018 in Case R 661/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Case T-311/18: Action brought on 17 May 2018 — Buck v EUIPO — Unger Holding (BUCK)

Action brought on 17 May 2018 — Buck v EUIPO — Unger Holding (BUCK)

(Case T-311/18)

Parties

Applicant: Društvo za proizvodnju inženjering i usluge Buck d.o.o. (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: I. Lázaro Betancor, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unger Holding GmbH (Herne, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark BUCK in colours white and red — International registration designating the European Union No 1 218 386

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2018 in Case R 1024/2017-4

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 47(2) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
—

annul the provisions of Article 9(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EU) 2018/120 of 23 January 2018 fixing for 2018 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (OJ 2018 L 27, p. 1), on the grounds that: — in the light of the objective that they pursue, those provisions give rise to unjustified discrimination between citizens of the European Union and infringe the principle of equality; — the Council of the European Union exceeded the bounds of its discretion by failing to take account of any objective data regarding the effects of harvests from marine recreational fishing on sea bass stocks; — they infringe the principle of proportionality and fail to comply with Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy in so far as the economic and sociological importance of marine recreational fishing has clearly not been taken into account.
Case T-280/18: Action brought on 3 May 2018 — ABLV Bank v SRB

Action brought on 3 May 2018 — ABLV Bank v SRB

(Case T-280/18)

Parties

Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

— annul the decisions of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 23 February 2018 with regard to the applicant and its subsidiary ABLV Bank Luxembourg, SA;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the SRB lacked the competence for the decision as to liquidation.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s rights by announcing a formal decision not to adopt resolution measures.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s rights owing to its erroneous assessment pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014. ( 1 )

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s rights owing to its erroneous assessment pursuant to Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 806/2014.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s right to be heard and other procedural rights.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s right to an appropriately reasoned decision.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the case.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality.

9. Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of equal treatment.

10. Tenth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s right of property and the freedom to conduct a business.

11. Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the nemo auditur principle.

12. Twelth plea in law, alleging that the SRB committed a détournement de pouvoir.

13. Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union because of a failure to ensure the handling of the applicant’s affairs by the relevant institutions and bodies of the Union.

( 1 ) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1)
—

The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not exercise due care and attention in the adoption of Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018, since before the adoption of the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence he had adduced, which supports his case, and it relied primarily on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigations in the Ukraine.
First plea in law, alleging a lack of legal basis. In this regard, the applicant submits that the contested decision creates a new rule of general application which goes clearly beyond the legal framework governing the defendant’s exercise of its prudential supervision tasks.

Furthermore, by adopting a decision taken without prior analysis of the solvency and liquidity risk and without regard for the applicant’s risk profile, the defendant exceeded the powers laid down in Articles 4(1)(f) and 16 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank (ECB) concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63) (‘the SSM Regulation’).

Finally, the applicant submits that Article 16(1)(c) of the SSM Regulation does not authorise the ECB to act to ensure ‘better information on risks’ and that Articles 4(1)(f) and 16(2)(d) of the SSM Regulation do not authorise the adoption of prudential measures in respect of off-balance-sheet items.
Case T-349/18: Action brought on 5 June 2018 — Hauzenberger v EUIPO (TurboPerformance)

Action brought on 5 June 2018 — Hauzenberger v EUIPO (TurboPerformance)

(Case T-349/18)

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Hauzenberger (Sinzing, Germany) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark with the word elements ‘TurboPerformance’ — Application for registration No 16 053 431

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2018 in Case R 2206/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
Case T-389/18: Action brought on 21 June 2018 — Nonnemacher v EUIPO — Ingram (WKU)

Action brought on 21 June 2018 — Nonnemacher v EUIPO — Ingram (WKU)

(Case T-389/18)

Parties

Applicant: Klaus Nonnemacher (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: C. Zierhut, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paul Ingram (Birmingham, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark WKU — EU trade mark No 11 482 841

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 April 2018 in Case R 399/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Case T-366/18: Action brought on 8 June 2018 — Pet King Brands v EUIPO — Virbac (SUIMOX)

Action brought on 8 June 2018 — Pet King Brands v EUIPO — Virbac (SUIMOX)

(Case T-366/18)

Parties

Applicant: Pet King Brands, Inc. (Bartlett, Illinois, United States) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Virbac SA (Carros, France)

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 word mark SUIMOX — Application for registration No 15 039 993

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2018 in Case R 1835/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Case T-421/18: Action brought on 10 July 2018 — Bauer Radio v EUIPO — Weinstein (MUSIKISS)

Action brought on 10 July 2018 — Bauer Radio v EUIPO — Weinstein (MUSIKISS)

(Case T-421/18)

Parties

Applicant: Bauer Radio Ltd (Peterborough, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Messenger, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Simon Weinstein (Wien, Austria)

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 word mark MUSIKISS — Application for registration No 12 317 616

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 in Case R 510/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 July 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

(Case T-445/18)

(2018/C 311/19)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Application for registration No 2 791 416

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 January 2018 in Case R 1270/2007-1

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 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(2) of the German Law on trade marks;

— Infringement of Article 8(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(3) of the German Law on trade marks;

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 July 2018 — Puma v EUIPO — Carrefour (Representation of crossed lines)

(Case T-424/18)

(2018/C 301/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. Trieb and M. Schunke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carrefour SA (Boulogne Billancourt, France)

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 (Representation of crossed lines — Application for registration No 14 572 697

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2018 in Case R 945/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 July 2018 — NSC Holding v EUIPO — Ibercondor Barcelona (CONDOR SERVICE, NSC)

(Case T-468/18)

(2018/C 328/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: NSC Holding GmbH & Cie. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Eichhorst, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ibercondor Barcelona SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘CONDOR SERVICE, NSC’ — Application for registration No 15 292 675

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 in Case R 2440/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

in the alternative,

— order that the case be referred back to the defendant for a fresh independent review.

Plea in law
7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to self-determination, since (i) the decision denies the existence of the people of Western Sahara with regard to the right to self-determination and upsets the national unity of that people; and (ii) it authorises the opening of negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco in breach of the separate and distinct status of Western Sahara and the permanent sovereignty of the people of that territory over its natural resources.
Action brought on 24 July 2018 — Biasotto v EUIPO — OOFOS (OOF)

(Case T-453/18)

(2018/C 352/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Biasotto (Treviso, Italy) (represented by: F. le Divelec Lemmi, R. Castiglioni and E. Cammareri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: OOFOS LLC (Reno, Nevada, United States).

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 figurative mark OOF — Application for registration No 14 961 767

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 in Case R 1270/2017-2.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— fully uphold the present action;

— entirely reject the contested decision and, consequently, allow EUTM Application No 14 961 767 to proceed to registration in relation to all the products and services claimed by the same in classes 18, 25 and 35 (or, eventually, asking the EUIPO to examine once again the appeal filed by the Applicant on 15 June 2017, this time, however, comparing the contested application with the trademark claimed by the Opponent’s earlier International Registration No 1 258 728);

— order EUIPO or the Intervener to bear all the costs related not only to the present proceedings before the General Court but also to the opposition and appeal proceedings before the EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 August 2018 — Užstato sistemos administratorius v EUIPO — DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem (Representation of a bottle and an arrow)

(Case T-477/18)

(2018/C 341/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Užstato sistemos administratorius VšĮ (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: I. Lukauskienė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

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 figurative mark (Representation of a bottle and an arrow) — Application for registration No 14 481 519

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2018 in Case R 2203/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in the part that found that the Opposition Division’s decision of 21 August 2017 that the signs produced a different overall impression which would exclude a likelihood of confusion is annulled and to remain valid the decision of Opposition Division of 21 August 2017;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

award the applicant the amount of EUR 1 in compensation for the non-material harm he suffered as a result of his being excluded from the parliamentary visit and the failure to have regard to the compensation to which he was entitled;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 July 2018 — Getsmarter Online v EUIPO (getsmarter)

(Case T-473/18)

(2018/C 352/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Getsmarter Online Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Silcock, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark getsmarter — Application for registration No 16 565 939

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 in Case R 2632/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Contested Decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the Appellant’s costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;