do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-187/20: Action brought on 9 April 2020 — Davide Groppi v EUIPO — Viabizzuno (Lamps)
Date: 2020-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, lighting equipment








C_2020191EN.01003501.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/35






Action brought on 9 April 2020 — Davide Groppi v EUIPO — Viabizzuno (Lamps)
(Case T-187/20)
(2020/C 191/47)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Davide Groppi Srl (Piacenza, Italy) (represented by: F. Boscariol de Roberto, D. Capra and V. Malerba, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Viabizzuno Srl (Bentivoglio, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the Court

Design at issue: Community design No 2 503 680-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2020 in Case R 126/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant and respondent to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
Case T-184/20: Action brought on 9 April 2020 — JE v Court of Justice of the European Union
Date: 2020-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: appointment of members, competence of the institution, infringement of EU law, member of the Court of Justice (EU), termination of employment








C_2020201EN.01003601.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/36






Action brought on 9 April 2020 — JE v Court of Justice of the European Union
(Case T-184/20)
(2020/C 201/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: JE (represented by: N. Forwood, QC)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


partially annul the Decision of the President of the Court of Justice of 31 January 2020 to declare vacant the applicant’s post as Advocate-General and to initiate the procedure for the appointment of a successor;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant alleges that the challenged act should be annulled on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, and infringement of the Treaties and rules of law relation to their application.
Case T-192/20: Action brought on 9 April 2020 — Tikal Marine Systems v EUIPO — Ultra Safety Systems (Ultra Tef-Gel)
Date: 2020-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, insulator, lubricants, metal coating, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020191EN.01003701.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/37






Action brought on 9 April 2020 — Tikal Marine Systems v EUIPO — Ultra Safety Systems (Ultra Tef-Gel)
(Case T-192/20)
(2020/C 191/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tikal Marine Systems GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany) (represented by: M. Mahnkopf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ultra Safety Systems Inc. (Mangonia Park, Florida, United States)

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 Ultra Tef-Gel — European Union trade mark No 15 369 739

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2020 in Case R 2499/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 November 2018;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare the trade mark at issue valid;










—


order the defendant and intervener to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-191/20: Action brought on 9 April 2020 — FCA Italy v EUIPO — Bettag (Pandem)
Date: 2020-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pneumatic tyre, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2020201EN.01003602.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/36






Action brought on 9 April 2020 — FCA Italy v EUIPO — Bettag (Pandem)
(Case T-191/20)
(2020/C 201/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: FCA Italy SpA (Torino, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and E. Truffo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Christoph Bettag (Aachen, Germany)

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 Pandem — Application for registration No 17 297 029

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2020 in Case R 1483/2019-5

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 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Serious distortion of the facts.
Case T-208/20: Action brought on 9 April 2020 — JH v Europol
Date: 2020-04-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, incapacity for work, indemnification, staff regulations (EU), trauma








C_2020191EN.01003802.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/38






Action brought on 9 April 2020 — JH v Europol
(Case T-208/20)
(2020/C 191/52)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: JH (represented by: M. Quaas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the order adopted on 2 April 2019 by the defendant’s head official discharging the applicant with immediate effect from leadership of the organisational unit GDPT (Personal Protection) of the Governance Directorate of the European Police Office (Europol) was unlawful; and










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant such compensation as the Court may deem appropriate.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on the following pleas in law:






1.


Infringement of the Europol Staff Regulations
The applicant claims that the preconditions for the contested disciplinary measure under the Europol Staff Regulations have not been met. The defendant has disregarded the applicable provisions of the Staff Regulations and attempts to justify the adopted disciplinary measure (only) months later through a retroactive redeployment order and by reference to a reorganisation.










2.


Injury to health and incapacity for work
Furthermore, the applicant seeks compensation because his health has demonstrably been harmed as a result of the unlawful measure and his further professional activity has therefore become impossible.