ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/46

Action brought on 21 August 2017 — Disney Enterprises v EUIPO — Di Molfetta (DiSNEY FROZEN)

(Case T-567/17)

(2017/C 347/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Disney Enterprises, Inc. (Burbank, California, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fabio Di Molfetta (Bisceglie, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘DiSNEY FROZEN’ — Application for registration No 11 830 965

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2017 in Case R 2342/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/29

Action brought on 20 July 2017 — TV v Council

(Case T-453/17)

(2017/C 347/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TV (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

Consequently,

— Annul the decision of 19 August 2016 dismissing the applicant at the end of his probation period, namely 1 September 2016;

— Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 11 April 2017 rejecting the applicant’s claim of 4 November 2016;

— Award the applicant the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered;

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful, in that it confirms the conclusion of the opinion of the Reports Committee (CORAP), which substituted its own evaluation for that of the reporting officers.

3. Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of fact and law vitiating the grounds on which the probation report is based.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a lack of normal probation conditions.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care and the principle of sound administration.

The applicant is of the opinion, moreover, that the illegalities set out in the pleas for annulment are all failings imputable to the defendant. The applicant is therefore also seeking compensation for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly caused by the contested decisions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/19

Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Corra González and Others v SRB

(Case T-511/17)

(2017/C 357/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: José María Francisco Corra González (Madrid, Spain) and seven other applicants (represented by: C. de Santiago Álvarez and J. Redondo Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— declare that, by adopting in its executive session of 7 June 2017 Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 establishing the resolution scheme in respect of the financial institution Banco Popular Español S.A., the Single Resolution Board (‘the SRB’) infringed EU law;

— consequently, annul that measure, and any subsequent implementing measures too that the SRB may have adopted, with effect ex tunc.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging undue treatment of the applicant’s personal data and infringement of Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Union, of the duty of care, and of the right to good administration.
—

order EASO to investigate the process by which document EASO/ED/2015/358 came into being, and order EASO and the EASO management board to take measures with respect to the poor administration of the office in accordance with Articles 29(b) and 31(6) of Regulation No 439/2010 establishing EASO, and to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 30 000 for the breach of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union when EASO adopted an individual measure which adversely affected her;
—

Take note of the annulment proceedings against the resolution issued by the SRB on 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08) agreeing to the resolution of the institution Banco Popular and approving the resolution scheme containing the resolution measures to apply to that institution and, following the appropriate procedural steps, grant the forms of order sought.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/34

Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-590/17)

(2017/C 369/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:

— for payment of all sums due to it under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement, comprising: — 726 942,81 euro, the amount due to it as at 25 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 25 August 2017); — further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made; — all applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional fees accruing from the due date until the date payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.

— In any event, for payment of the amount due to it for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising: — all principal and interest for each instalment; — contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), from the due date of each instalment until payment is made by Syria.

— For payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/43

Action brought on 31 August 2017 — Rubik’s Brand v EUIPO — Simba Toys (Shape of a cube)

(Case T-601/17)

(2017/C 374/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rubik’s Brand Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Szamosi and M. Borbás, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark (Shape of a cube) — EU trade mark No 162 784

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2017 in Case R 452/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and those of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

Given that it is practically impossible to reverse the implementation of that decision, declare that SRB is under an obligation to make good the damage caused to the applicants, which corresponds to the amount of their investment or the amount determined at the time of enforcement of the judgment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/47

Action brought on 16 August 2017 — González Calvet v SRB

(Case T-554/17)

(2017/C 382/58)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Ramón González Calvet (Barcelona, Spain) and Joan González Calvet (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: P. Molina Bosch, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should take note that an action against Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board has been lodged and, following the completion of the relevant legal procedures, uphold the present action and annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board, thereby rendering the implementation of the decision and the actions taken as a result thereof devoid of effects. If the Court does not annul that decision, the applicants claim that they are entitled to compensation for the loss of their shares.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/47

Action brought on 25 September 2017 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ansell (ZARA TANZANIA ADVENTURES)

(Case T-655/17)

(2017/C 402/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zainab Ansell (Moshi, Tanzania) and Roger Ansell (Moshi)

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 ‘ZARA TANZANIA ADVENTURES’ — Application for registration No 8 320 591

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 July 2017 in Joined Cases R 2330/2011-2 and R 2369/2011-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO dated 5 July 2017, in joined Cases R 2330/2011-2 and R 2369/2011-2, in particular regarding the allowing of the EUTM application No. 8320591 to proceed to registration for the challenged services in Classes 39 and 43;

— order that the of the appeal action be borne by the defendant (EUIPO) and the intervener, and those incurred in proceedings before the EUIPO’s Opposition Division and the Second Board of Appeal by the intervener.

Plea in law
—

The applicant alleges, inter alia, that the Commission misinterpreted the concept of the beneficiary. It further submits that the Commission was wrong to classify airport operators as mere ‘intermediaries’ between the region and the airlines, meaning that it failed duly to consider whether such operators received an economic advantage. In addition, funding was not selective. The Commission furthermore misinterpreted the meaning of distortion of competition and effects on trade.
Case T-684/17: Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Amorepacific v EUIPO — Primavera Life (p primera Pure Sprout Energy)

Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Amorepacific v EUIPO — Primavera Life (p primera Pure Sprout Energy)

(Case T-684/17)

Parties

Applicant: Amorepacific Corporation (Seoul, Korea) (represented by: B. Führmeyer and F. Klein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Primavera Life GmbH (Oy-Mittelberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘p primera Pure Sprout Energy’ — Application for registration No 13 151 683

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2017 in Case R 1744/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the contested decision by rejecting the opposition in its entirety;

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

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law: manifest errors of assessment by the Commission, which are partially based on incorrect facts and on infringements of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/48

Action brought on 3 October 2017 — Minera Catalano Aragonesa and Luengo Martínez v Commission and SRB

(Case T-678/17)

(2017/C 424/70)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Minera Catalano Aragonesa, SA (Ariñoteruel, Spain) and Ángel Luengo Martínez (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: R. Montejo Pérez, F. Ferrara and F. Banti, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— Annul the decisions of 7 June 2017 of the Single Resolution Board (No SRB/EES/2017/08) and of the European Commission (No 1246);

— Order the Single Resolution Board and the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/50

Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Miralla Inversiones v SRB

(Case T-685/17)

(2017/C 424/73)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Miralla Inversiones (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

First — take note of the present application and acknowledge the lodging of annulment proceedings against Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 concerning the resolution of Banco Popular, as well as the valuation on which it is based and, once the relevant verifications have been carried out, declare the action admissible and follow the procedure set out in Article 120 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;

Second — In accordance with the application, order SRB to submit without delay the provisional valuation carried out by DELOITTE in accordance with Article 20 of the Regulation (EU) 806/2014 for the purpose of enabling the proper exercise of the right of the defence and, once that valuation has been submitted, allow the applicant a specific period to analyse and examine it in detail, so that it is in a position to oppose it during the reply stage;

Third — In the event that it does not accept the claims made in the previous paragraph and the proceedings continue, rule that Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 concerning the resolution of Banco Popular and the valuation on which it is based are contrary to EU law.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the facts in so far as the Council has not adduced any evidence proving that the applicant is an internationally recognised Syrian conglomerate.

According to the applicant, that contention is completely flawed and is indicative of the numerous substantive inaccuracies in the Council’s approach.

In addition, the applicant considers that it has demonstrated that it is not a large company but that it qualifies as a small or medium-sized company under EU law and has no international reputation.

It is also of the opinion that the Council failed to take into consideration both the judgment of 6 April 2017, Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council (T-35/15, not published, EU:T:2017:262) and that of 11 May 2017, Abdulkarim v Council (T-304/15, not published, EU:T:2017:327), in which the General Court annulled the sanctions imposed, respectively, against the applicant and Mr Wael Abdulkarim as a result of manifest errors of assessment by the Council.
—

annul the decision Ref. ARES(2017)3107844-21/06/2017 of the European Commission excluding the applicant from participating in all procurement and grant award procedures governed by Regulation No 966/2012 and from the award of funds governed by Regulation 2015/323;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Defendant has manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the Applicants’ case; there is no factual basis for their inclusion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/45

Action brought on 29 September 2017 — NeoCell v EUIPO (BIOACTIVE NEOCELL COLLAGEN)

(Case T-666/17)

(2018/C 005/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NeoCell Holding Company LLC (Sunrise, Florida, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘BIOACTIVE NEOCELL COLLAGEN’ — International registration No 1 298 829 designating the European Union

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2017 in Case R 147/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— in the alternative, alter the contested decision to state that the application possesses sufficient distinctive character that no objection to its registration may be raised under Article 7(1)(b) or (c) of the Regulation;

— order the defendant to pay to the application the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

Plea in law
—

Declare that the Single Resolution Board has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to repair the harm suffered by the applicants as a result of both its actions and its omissions which resulted in the applicants losing in full their investments in surbordinated bonds of the Banco Popular Español, S.A.;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/53

Action brought on 17 November 2017 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT BAR)

(Case T-758/17)

(2018/C 022/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Perfect Bar LLC (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: F. Miazzetto, J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements‘PERFECT BAR’ — Application for registration No 15 374 085

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2017 in Case R 2439/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and allow the registration of the mark applied for, this is, the European Union Trademark application no. 015374085 ‘PERFECT BAR’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs derived from the procedure before the General Court and the EUIPO.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/45

Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Parfümerie Akzente v EUIPO (GlamHair)

(Case T-787/17)

(2018/C 032/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Parfümerie Akzente GmbH (Pfedelbach, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘GlamHair’ — Application No 15 211 956

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 82/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law