ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 September 2021 — Worldwide Brands v EUIPO — Guangdong Camel Apparel (CAMEL CROWN)

(Case T-562/21)

(2021/C 462/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Worldwide Brands, Inc. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: J. Gracia Albero and R. Ahijón Lana, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guangdong Camel Apparel Co. Ltd (Foshan City, 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: Application for European word mark CAMEL CROWN — Application for registration No 17 882 201

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2021 in Joined Cases R 159/2020-5 and R 184/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision to the extent that it partially upheld the appeal filed by the intervener and partially rejected the appeal filed by this party, allowing the registration of the contested trademark for the indicated goods in classes 24 and 28;

— order the defendant to bear the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs deriving from the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Fifth Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 September 2021 — PricewaterhouseCoopers Belastingadviseurs v EUIPO — Haufe-Lexware (TAXMARC)

(Case T-619/21)

(2021/C 471/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PricewaterhouseCoopers Belastingadviseurs NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Stoop, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haufe-Lexware GmbH & Co. KG (Freiburg, 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 word mark TAXMARC — Application for registration No 18 047 421

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2021 in Case R 131/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of this application and order Haufe-Lexware to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 13 September 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-576/21)

(2021/C 462/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain), Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 1 431 829-0006

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2021 in Case R 1005/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision to: — allow the applicant’s appeal, — dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicants’ applications to declare the contested design invalid, — order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;

— order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s fees and costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155);

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172);

— Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 October 2021 — Apart v EUIPO — S. Tous (Representation of the outline of a bear)

(Case T-638/21)

(2021/C 481/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apart sp. z o.o. (Suchy Las, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: S. Tous, SL (Manresa, 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: European Union figurative mark (Representation of the outline of a bear) — European Union trade mark No 8 127 144

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2021 in Case R 1437/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision as a whole and alter the decision by revocation of the trade mark at issue;

— alternatively, annul the contested decision as a whole and refer of the case back to the Board of Appeal;

— order EUIPO and S. TOUS, S.L. to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and those of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by lack of the reasons on which the assumptions about the character of the contested trademark are based;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 September 2021 — Segimerus v EUIPO — Karsten Manufacturing (MONSOON)

(Case T-627/21)

(2021/C 471/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Segimerus Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Donath, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Karsten Manufacturing Corp. (Phoenix, Arizona, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark MONSOON — EU trade mark No 10 469 906

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 July 2021 in Case R 1125/2020-4

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 59(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 34 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

annul the contested decision of 18 February 2021 by which the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff for an indefinite period was terminated; and annul, in so far as necessary, the rejection decision of 5 July 2021;
Action brought on 5 October 2021 — Foodwatch v Commission

(Case T-643/21)

(2021/C 481/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Foodwatch eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Klinger, C. Douhaire and S. Ernst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 5 August 2021 (C(2021)5963 final) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application of 6 May 2021 for full access to the document ‘Briefing for the EU RCF co-chair for the Regulatory Cooperation Forum meeting on 3-4 February 2020’ (Ares(2021)1264866), in so far as the rejection is based on the ground for refusal laid down in the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, and

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings including those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision C(2021)5963 final of 5 August 2021, refusing unrestricted access to a preparatory document relating to a meeting of the Regulatory Cooperation Forum (RCF) concerning the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) through misapplication of the law — The assumption that international relations would be undermined within the meaning of this provision on the basis that disclosure of internal strategic considerations could jeopardise the successful outcome of the ongoing exchanges related to the implementation of the agreement is incorrect. — The assumption that international relations would be undermined within the meaning of this provision on the basis that the information used could also be used by third countries against the EU is incorrect. — The assumption that international relations would be undermined within the meaning of this provision on the basis that cooperation with Canada could otherwise be threatened is also incorrect.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, as a result of the incorrect decision to disclose only parts of the document at issue.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(7) of Regulation No 1049/2001, because no time limit was placed on the refusal of access.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Action brought on 22 October 2021 — Auken and Others v Commission

(Case T-689/21)

(2021/C 513/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Margrete Auken, Tilly Metz, Jutta Paulus, Michèle Rivasi and Kimberly van Sparrentak (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s implied rejection decision of 13 August 2021 following their confirmatory application of 30 June 2021 against the decision of 9 June 2021 to partially deny access to the documents requested by the applicants; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant unlawfully applied the exceptions provided for in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed to justify the application of exceptions under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and therefore violated Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 as no strict interpretation and application of the first indent of Article 4(2) and of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 was followed by the defendant.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant incoherently applied the exceptions provided for in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not take into account that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested information.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43-48).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 October 2021 — Mendes v EUIPO — Actial Farmaceutica (VSL3TOTAL)

(Case T-678/21)

(2021/C 502/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mendes SA (Lugano, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Cavattoni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Actial Farmaceutica Srl (Rome, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark VSL3TOTAL — European Union trade mark No 11 702 172

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 August 2021 in Case R 1568/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present action;

— annul the contested decision;

— condemn the other party in the proceedings to bear the costs and fees.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 November 2021 — Zielonogórski Klub Żużlowy Sportowa v EUIPO — Falubaz Polska (FALUBAZ)

(Case T-703/21)

(2022/C 11/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Zielonogórski Klub Żużlowy Sportowa S.A. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: T. Grucelski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Falubaz Polska S.A. spółka komandytowo-akcyjna (Zielona Góra)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FALUBAZ’ — EU trade mark No 14 535 835

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 August 2021 in Case R 1681/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union and any costs necessarily incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

— in the event of intervention in the proceedings by the other party, order that party to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringements of the principle of free evaluation of evidence through an arbitrary evaluation of the evidence obtained;

— Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) (now Article 59(1)(b) of [Regulation (EU) 2017/1001]).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 October 2021 — Alves Casas v EUIPO — Make-Up Art Cosmetics (mccosmetics NY)

(Case T-681/21)

(2022/C 2/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Ana Maria Alves Casas (Porto, Portugal) (represented by: Â. Rodrigues Oliveira, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Make-Up Art Cosmetics, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark mccosmetics NY — Application for registration No 17 866 777

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2021 in Case R 2398/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, with all the attendant legal consequences.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Omelyanyuk v Council

(Case T-557/21)

(2022/C 11/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aleksandr Omelyanyuk (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.
Action brought on 31 October 2021 — Peace United v EUIPO — 1906 Collins (MY BOYFRIEND IS OUT OF TOWN)

(Case T-699/21)

(2022/C 37/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Peace United Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Artzimovitch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 1906 Collins LLC (Miami, Florida, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark MY BOYFRIEND IS OUT OF TOWN — EU trade mark No 11 352 804

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2021 in Case R 276/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as, as a result of various errors of assessment in fact and in law, as well as a failure to fulfil the duty of good administration, the Board of Appeal found that EU trade mark No 11 352 804, MY BOYFRIEND IS OUT OF TOWN, had not been put to genuine use during the period at issue for the services claimed in Classes 41 and 43;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 63(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in that the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the abusive nature of the action for revocation;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU in relation to the notion of selectivity, infringement of the burden of proof and failure to state reasons. — In that regard, the applicants submit that the Commission errs in its ‘primary’ selectivity analysis by stating that the system of reference is ‘the normal market conditions under which companies should operate’, including all undertakings and sectors of the economy. The Commission errs in its ‘subsidiary’ selectivity analysis by stating that terrestrial and satellite technologies are in comparable situations when delivering digital television signal to what the decision at issue refers to as Area II.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 December 2021 — Gameageventures v EUIPO (GAME TOURNAMENTS)

(Case T-776/21)

(2022/C 64/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gameageventures LLP (Folkestone, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Santos Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark GAME TOURNAMENTS– Application for registration No 18 207 605

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2021 in Case R 211/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the obligation to state reason and of the right to be heard;

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

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

— Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of procedure and of the competence rules concerning distribution of powers. The applicant submits in that regard that the decision to initiate an administrative investigation should have been taken by the Secretary-General of EEAS.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging the veracity of the expenses declared by the IMDEA to the European Commission for the researchers who were part of the Compose3 Project in relation to Articles II.14 and II.15 of the General Conditions; — In that regard, a large amount of evidence is provided, the combined assessment of which leads to the conclusion that the expenses were genuine;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the rejection of the request for assistance was premature since it was made without opening an investigation and without waiting for the result of her request for access to her medical file, and was thus in breach of the right to be heard in an effective manner before the adoption of the decision.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principles on the processing of personal data. This plea is divided into two parts. — First part, alleging infringement of the purpose limitation principle governing the processing of data and the principle of legality. In order for the personal data contained in the applicants’ EU digital COVID certificates to be used to give them access to the Parliament’s buildings, it is a legal requirement that those data must have been collected for that purpose. Without a legal basis expressly authorising the processing of medical data relating to vaccination, testing or recovery for the purposes of imposing conditions for access to a place of work and to parliamentary assemblies, in no circumstances is it for the Bureau of the Parliament to authorise such data processing, and all the less by means of a requirement which is not a law in the strict sense of the term. — Second part, alleging infringement of the principles of good faith, openness and minimisation since, when their personal data were collected, the applicants were not informed that those data would be used to give or refuse them access to their place of work.