do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-680/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2017 — Les Éclaires GmbH v EUIPO — L’éclaireur International (L’ECLAIREUR) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark L’ECLAIREUR — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1), Article 51(1)(a) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 22(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Alleged divergence from Part C, Section 6, of the EUIPO Guidelines for examination)
Date: 2017-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017202EN.01001701.xml










26.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/17





Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2017 — Les Éclaires GmbH v EUIPO — L’éclaireur International (L’ECLAIREUR)
(Case T-680/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark L’ECLAIREUR - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1), Article 51(1)(a) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 22(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Alleged divergence from Part C, Section 6, of the EUIPO Guidelines for examination))
(2017/C 202/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Les Éclaires GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Bund, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: L’éclaireur International (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Decker, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2015 (Case R 2266/2014-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Les Éclaires and L’éclaireur International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Les Éclaires GmbH to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by L’éclaireur International before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
Case T-273/17: Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Quadri di Cardano v Commission
Date: 2017-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, allowances and expenses, fundamental rights, national law, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), temporary employment








C_2017221EN.01003502.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/35





Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Quadri di Cardano v Commission
(Case T-273/17)
(2017/C 221/50)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Alessandro Quadri di Cardano (Schaerbeek, Belgium) (represented by: N. De Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the PMO’s decision of 19 July 2016 setting his individual rights at the time of taking up employment at the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA), in that it refuses to award him an expatriation allowance of 16 % pursuant to Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and, consequently, implies that related rights, in particular annual travel expenses, are not to be granted;










—


order the defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging failure to have regard for the discussions and negotiations relating to the period preceding the reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials and, in particular, failure to respect legitimate expectations, infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty of the applicant, as well as disregard for his acquired rights, by reason of a suddenly different analysis of the documentation used to determine his individual rights.










2.


Second plea in law, relating to the temporary employment contract governed by Belgian law invoked by the Commission as justification for the view that the applicant established his residence in Belgium during a period of employment for a private employer. This plea in law is divided into three parts:






—


first part, alleging that the Commission misused and abused its powers by attempting to exclude any hierarchical relationship between itself and the applicant during his period of employment as an agency staff member in order to be able to deny the existence of employment with an international organisation, which would in principle have to result in the postponement of any determination as to whether the conditions required by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations had been satisfied;










—


second part, alleging an error in law, infringement of the Belgian statutory provisions relating to temporary employment contracts and misuse of powers by the Commission;










—


third part, alleging a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the principle of proportionality and infringement of the principle of sound administration.
Case T-287/17: Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Swemac Innovation v EUIPO — Swemac Medical Appliances (SWEMAC)
Date: 2017-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, research and development, trade-mark law








C_2017213EN.01003801.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/38





Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Swemac Innovation v EUIPO — Swemac Medical Appliances (SWEMAC)
(Case T-287/17)
(2017/C 213/52)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Swemac Innovation AB (Linköping, Sweden) (represented by: G. Nygren, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swemac Medical Appliances AB (Linköping, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SWEMAC’ — EU trade mark No 6 326 177

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2017 in Case R 3000/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and reinstate the EUTM number 006326177 to full validity, including goods and services in classes 10: ‘Surgical and medical apparatus and instruments’ and 42 ‘Research and development services relating to surgical and medical apparatus and instruments’;










—


order the other party to pay the costs of the Applicant before EUIPO and the Boards of Appeal, EUR 1 000; and










—


order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs of the Applicant before the General Court.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-268/17: Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale
Date: 2017-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Joint Undertaking, Framework Programme for Research and Development, aeronautical industry, debt, financial aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2017231EN.01003101.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/31





Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale
(Case T-268/17)
(2017/C 231/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, Agent and M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale Srl (Oricola, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of EUR 101 370,94 in relation to the Grant Agreement for partners No 632462 ‘EASIER-Experimental Acoustic Subsonic wind tunnel Investigation of the advanced geared turbofan Regional aircraft integrating HLD innovative low-noise design’, plus the amount of EUR 524,91 as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,5 % for the period between 7 February 2017 and 1 April 2017;










—


order the defendant to pay EUR 9,72 per day by way of interest from 2 April 2017 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law.
The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to implement project EASIER and by failing to provide CSJU with the relevant reports and deliverables, in accordance with Article II.2 Annex II of the Grant Agreement.
Moreover, the defendant has failed to carry out the work to be performed as identified in Annex I therefore violating its obligations under Article II.3 lett. a) e) and h) of Annex II of the Grant Agreement.
Accordingly, the applicant terminated the Grant Agreement on the basis of Article II.38 Annex II of the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of EUR 101 370,94 that had already been paid by the coordinator to the defendant in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Indeed the pre-financing remains the property of the applicant until final payment.
The facts giving rise to Revoind Industriale S.r.l.’s obligations, as beneficiary of the Grant Agreement, are widely undisputed in the present case and the defendant’s objections are generic, incomplete and lack of any supporting element, thus appear to be completely unfounded.
Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.
Case T-269/17: Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale
Date: 2017-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Joint Undertaking, Framework Programme for Research and Development, aeronautical industry, debt, financial aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2017231EN.01003201.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/32





Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale
(Case T-269/17)
(2017/C 231/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, Agent and M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale Srl (Oricola, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of EUR 433 485,93 in relation to the Grant Agreement for partners No 325954 ‘ESICAPIA-Experimental Subsonic Investigation of a Complete Aircraft Propulsion system Installation and Architecture power plant optimization’, plus the amount of EUR 2 244,63 as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,5 % for the period between 7 February 2017 and 1 April 2017;










—


order the defendant to pay EUR 41,57 per day by way of interest from 2 April 2017 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on on the following plea in law.
The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to implement project ESICAPIA and by failing to provide CSJU with the relevant reports and deliverables, in accordance with Article II.2 Annex II of the Grant Agreement.
Moreover, the defendant has failed to carry out the work to be performed as identified in Annex I therefore violating its obligations under Article II.3 lett. a) e) and h) of Annex II of the Grant Agreement.
Accordingly, the applicant terminated the Grant Agreement on the basis of Article II.38 Annex II of the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of EUR 433 485,93 that had already been paid by the coordinator to the defendant in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Indeed the pre-financing remains the property of the applicant until final payment.
The facts giving rise to Revoind Industriale S.r.l.’s obligations, as beneficiary of the Grant Agreement, are widely undisputed in the present case and the defendant’s objections are generic, incomplete and lack of any supporting element, thus appear to be completely unfounded.
Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.
Case T-271/17: Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale
Date: 2017-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Joint Undertaking, Framework Programme for Research and Development, aeronautical industry, debt, financial aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2017231EN.01003401.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/34





Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale
(Case T-271/17)
(2017/C 231/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, Agent and M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale Srl (Oricola, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of EUR 189 128,26 in relation to the Grant Agreement for partners No 632456 ‘WITTINESS-WindTunnel Tests on an Innovative regional A/C for Noise assessment’, plus the amount of EUR 979,32 as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,5 % for the period between 7 February 2017 and 1 April 2017;










—


order the defendant to pay EUR 18,14 per day by way of interest from 2 April 2017 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on on the following plea in law.
The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to implement project WITTINESS and by failing to provide CSJU with the relevant reports and deliverables, in accordance with Article II.2 Annex II of the Grant Agreement.
Moreover, the defendant has failed to carry out the work to be performed as identified in Annex I therefore violating its obligations under Article II.3 lett. a) e) and h) of Annex II of the Grant Agreement.
Accordingly, the applicant terminated the Grant Agreement on the basis of Article II.38 Annex II of the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of EUR 189 128,26 that had already been paid by the coordinator to the defendant in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Indeed the pre-financing remains the property of the applicant until final payment.
The facts giving rise to Revoind Industriale S.r.l.’s obligations, as beneficiary of the Grant Agreement, are widely undisputed in the present case and the defendant’s objections are generic, incomplete and lack of any supporting element, thus appear to be completely unfounded.
Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.
Case C-242/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 8 May 2017 — Legatoria Editoriale Giovanni Olivotto (LEGO) SpA v Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA and Others
Date: 2017-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air quality, approval, biofuel, energy consumption, environmental standard, evaluation method, greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions, renewable energy








C_2017283EN.01001501.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 8 May 2017 — Legatoria Editoriale Giovanni Olivotto (LEGO) SpA v Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA and Others
(Case C-242/17)
(2017/C 283/21)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Legatoria Editoriale Giovanni Olivotto (LEGO) SpA

Respondents: Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali

Questions referred







1.


Does EU law, and more specifically Article 18(7) of Directive 2009/28/EC, (1) in conjunction with Commission Decision 2011/438/EU of 19 July 2011, (2) preclude national provisions, such as the Ministerial Decree of 23 January 2012, and in particular Articles 8 and 12 thereof, which impose specific requirements that are both different from and more extensive than the requirements which are satisfied by signing up to a voluntary scheme which is the subject of a decision of the European Commission adopted in accordance with Article 18(4) of Directive 2009/28/EC?










2.


If the answer to Question (a) is in the negative, must economic operators which are involved in the product supply chain, even though their role is merely that of a trader or intermediary and they do not possess physical availability of the product in question, be held to be subject to the provisions of EU law cited in Question (a)?






(1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).

(2)  Commission Implementing Decision of 19 July 2011 on the recognition of the ‘International Sustainability and Carbon Certification’ scheme for demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria under Directives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 190, p. 79).
Case T-276/17: Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Ogrodnik v EUIPO — Aviario Tropical (Tropical)
Date: 2017-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal feedingstuffs, aquaculture, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2017213EN.01003502.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/35





Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Ogrodnik v EUIPO — Aviario Tropical (Tropical)
(Case T-276/17)
(2017/C 213/48)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Tadeusz Ogrodnik (Chorzów, Poland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aviario Tropical, SA (Loures, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Tropical’ — EU trade mark No 3 435 773

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2017 in Case R 2125/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


dismiss the appeal brought by Aviário Tropical, SA, against the decision of the Defendant’s Cancellation Division of 15 July 2013 in Case 6029 C;










—


order EUIPO and Aviário Tropical, SA, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-207/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission (Interim measures — Public contracts — Disclaimer notice — Screening opinion — Application for a stay of execution — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2017-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, tendering








C_2017231EN.01002302.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/23





Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission
(Case T-207/16 R)
((Interim measures - Public contracts - Disclaimer notice - Screening opinion - Application for a stay of execution - Lack of urgency))
(2017/C 231/29)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TEFU seeking a stay of execution of the general exclusion decision concerning the applicant in the Early Warning System or in the Early Detection and Exclusion System.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is rejected.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-270/17: Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale
Date: 2017-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Joint Undertaking, Framework Programme for Research and Development, aeronautical industry, debt, financial aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2017231EN.01003301.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/33





Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale
(Case T-270/17)
(2017/C 231/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, Agent and by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale Srl (Oricola, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of EUR 625 793,42 in relation to the Grant Agreement for partners No 620108 ‘LOSITA-LOw Subsonic Investigation of a large complete Turboprop Aircraft’, plus the amount of EUR 3 240,41 as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,5 % for the period between 7 February 2017 and 1 April 2017;










—


order the defendant to pay EUR 60,01 per day by way of interest from 2 April 2017 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on on the following plea in law.
The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to implement project LOSITA and by failing to provide CSJU with the relevant reports and deliverables, in accordance with Article II.2 Annex II of the Grant Agreement.
Moreover, the defendant has failed to carry out the work to be performed as identified in Annex I therefore violating its obligations under Article II.3 lett. a) e) and h) of Annex II of the Grant Agreement.
Accordingly, the applicant terminated the Grant Agreement on the basis of Article II.38 Annex II of the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of EUR 625 793,42 that had already been paid by the coordinator to the defendant in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Indeed the pre-financing remains the property of the applicant until final payment.
The facts giving rise to Revoind Industriale S.r.l.’s obligations, as beneficiary of the Grant Agreement, are widely undisputed in the present case and the defendant’s objections are generic, incomplete and lack of any supporting element, thus appear to be completely unfounded.
Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.