do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-260/17: Action brought on 3 May 2017 — Bank of New York Mellon v EUIPO — Nixen Partners (NEXEN PULSE)
Date: 2017-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, financial services, information system, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2017221EN.01003401.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/34





Action brought on 3 May 2017 — Bank of New York Mellon v EUIPO — Nixen Partners (NEXEN PULSE)
(Case T-260/17)
(2017/C 221/47)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Klett and K. Schlüter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nixen Partners (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘NEXEN PULSE’ — Application for registration No 13 374 194

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2017 in Case R 1571/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and reject the opposition;










—


order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings as well as of the proceeding in front of the Board of Appeal and at the Opposition Division, including all necessary expenses of the Applicant in these proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-263/17: Action brought on 3 May 2017 — SD v EIGE
Date: 2017-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contract staff, damages, indemnification, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), temporary employment, work contract








C_2017239EN.01004801.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/48





Action brought on 3 May 2017 — SD v EIGE
(Case T-263/17)
(2017/C 239/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: SD (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, laywers)

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul EIGE’s implicit decision of 26 August 2016, rejecting the applicant’s request dated 26 April 2016 for a second renewal of his contract of employment;










—


annul also, in so far as necessary, EIGE’s decision of 20 January 2017, notified to the applicant on 23 January 2017, rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged on 3 October 2016 against EIGE’s implicit decision;










—


compensate the applicant for the material and moral prejudice suffered;










—


reimburse all the costs incurred in the present appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to state reasons and accordingly of the principle of good administration.






—


The defendant failed to provide the applicant with a reasoned decision on the substance of the request and subsequent complaint. This total lack of statement of reasons infringes the duty to state reasons and the principle of good administration.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the EU and of EIGE Decision No 82 of 28 July 2014 on contract renewal/non-renewal procedure applicable to temporary and contract agents (‘Decision 82’).






—


The defendant failed properly to exercise the discretionary powers granted to it under the above provisions and did not carry out a full or detailed examination of all the relevant facts of the case.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging procedural irregularities including the violation of the internal procedural rules set out in Decision 82, the breach of the rights of defence, the right to be heard, the principle of good administration and the duty of care.






—


The defendant not only failed to follow the procedure provided for by Decision 82 but also failed to hear the applicant’s views effectively in any other way. It thus failed, before taking the decision of 26 August 2016, to obtain relevant information from the applicant as to his interests and did not allow the applicant to properly prepare his defence.
Case C-231/17 P: Appeal brought on 3 May 2017 by Vatseva against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 April 2017 in Case T-920/16: Vatseva v European Court of Human Rights
Date: 2017-05-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, indemnification, jurisdiction, powers of the institutions (EU), right to justice








C_2017293EN.01001201.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/12





Appeal brought on 3 May 2017 by Vatseva against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 April 2017 in Case T-920/16: Vatseva v European Court of Human Rights
(Case C-231/17 P)
(2017/C 293/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Vatseva (represented by: K. Mladenova, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Court of Human Rights
By order of 6 July 2017 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case T-757/15: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Facebook v EUIPO — Brand IP Licensing (lovebook)
Date: 2017-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, legal aid, provision of services, registered trade mark, security services, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2017231EN.01005302.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/53





Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Facebook v EUIPO — Brand IP Licensing (lovebook)
(Case T-757/15) (1)

(2017/C 231/69)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.
Case T-681/15: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Environmental Manufacturing v EUIPO — Société Elmar Wolf (Representation of a wolf’s head) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a wolf’s head — Earlier international figurative mark Outils WOLF — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, machinery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wood industry








C_2017195EN.01002101.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/21





Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Environmental Manufacturing v EUIPO — Société Elmar Wolf (Representation of a wolf’s head)
(Case T-681/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a wolf’s head - Earlier international figurative mark Outils WOLF - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 195/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Stowmarket, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Société Elmar Wolf (Wissembourg, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2015 (Case R 1252/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Société Elmar Wolf and Environmental Manufacturing.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Environmental Manufacturing LLP to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
Case T-531/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Sotiropoulou and Others v Council (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — Decisions addressed to a Member State with a view to remedying an excessive deficit situation — Reduction in and withdrawal of pension rights in Greece — Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)
Date: 2017-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, budget deficit, economic policy, fundamental rights, indemnification, infringement of EU law, monetary policy, pension scheme








C_2017213EN.01002501.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/25





Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Sotiropoulou and Others v Council
(Case T-531/14) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - Decisions addressed to a Member State with a view to remedying an excessive deficit situation - Reduction in and withdrawal of pension rights in Greece - Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))
(2017/C 213/32)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicants: Leïmonia Sotiropoulou (Patras, Greece) and the 63 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: K. Chrysogonos, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Chatziioakeimidou and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the adoption of the decisions of the Council addressed to the Hellenic Republic in activation of the mechanism provided for in Article 126 TFEU.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Leïmonia Sotiropoulou and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
Case T-70/16 P: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil Service — EIB staff — Psychological harassment — Non-contractual liability — Errors of law — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2017-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, psychological harassment








C_2017221EN.01002801.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/28





Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB
(Case T-70/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - EIB staff - Psychological harassment - Non-contractual liability - Errors of law - Appeal manifestly unfounded))
(2017/C 221/39)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: G. Nuvoli and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015, De Nicola v EIB (F-104/13, EU:F:2015:164) seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present appeal.






(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
Case T-73/16 P: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Psychological harassment — Non-contractual liability — Errors of law — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2017-05-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, psychological harassment








C_2017213EN.01003001.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/30





Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB
(Case T-73/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Psychological harassment - Non-contractual liability - Errors of law - Appeal manifestly unfounded))
(2017/C 213/40)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented initially by G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, and subsequently by G. Nuvoli and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (sitting as a single judge) of 18 December 2015, De Nicola v EIB (F-37/12, EU:F:2015:162), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.