do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-273/23: Action brought on 19 May 2023 — Impossible Foods v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (IMPOSSIBLE)
Date: 2023-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, baby food, dietary product, food additive, food supplement, foodstuff, protein products, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023252EN.01006501.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/65






Action brought on 19 May 2023 — Impossible Foods v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (IMPOSSIBLE)
(Case T-273/23)
(2023/C 252/77)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Impossible Foods Inc. (Redwood City, California, United States) (represented by: T. Cohen Jehoram, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

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 IMPOSSIBLE — European Union trade mark No 12 775 664

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2023 in Case R 665/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-274/23: Action brought on 19 May 2023 — Karadeniz v EUIPO — Cakmakci (Acapulco)
Date: 2023-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hairdressing and beauty care, leisure, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023235EN.01007301.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/73






Action brought on 19 May 2023 — Karadeniz v EUIPO — Cakmakci (Acapulco)
(Case T-274/23)
(2023/C 235/87)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Taha Karadeniz (Dinslaken, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ayhan Cakmakci (Bochum, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Acapulco’ — EU trade mark No 18 125 766

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2023 in Case R 691/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


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





Pleas in law







—


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.
Case C-309/23 P: Appeal brought on 19 May 2023 by SE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 March 2023 in Case T-763/21, SE v Commission
Date: 2023-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, equal treatment, professional experience, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), traineeship








C_2023252EN.01003501.xml










17.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/35






Appeal brought on 19 May 2023 by SE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 March 2023 in Case T-763/21, SE v Commission
(Case C-309/23 P)
(2023/C 252/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: SE (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal.










—


consequently, give the appellant the benefit of his application of first instance.










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs of both the appeal and of the first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on 11 pleas in law:






1)


The General Court erred in finding that the claims related to infringement of art. 2 and 9 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (‘CEOS’) are inadmissible (pars. 33-36).










2)


The General Court erred in finding that Blue-Book trainees are one of the four categories of staff working for the Commission (par. 78 of the judgement).










3)


Erroneous qualification of the age discrimination as indirect, instead of direct (para. 56










4)


Erroneous application of the law (para. 70-71 and 75) in justifying indirect discrimination based on legal provisions applicable to direct discrimination.










5)


Failure to apply the correct ‘high’ standard of proof required to justify discriminatory treatment based on age (pars. 62 to 89)










6)


Erroneous application of the law in finding legitimate objectives (pars. 62-64 and 65-72)










7)


Erroneous interpretation and application of the law (par. 73) in finding that the objectives are of ‘public interest nature.’










8)


Erroneous application of the law in finding that Blue-Book trainees were not favored because the Call was also open to other staff categories (paras. 80-81)










9)


Erroneous in finding that the difference of treatment on grounds of age is proportionate (par. 84 to 89)










10)


The General Court erred (pars. 91 to 96) in finding that the DG Human Resources and Security has received a mandate to impose the requirement of having ‘a maximum 3 years of professional experience’ as an eligibility criterion.










11)


The General Court failed to address the discrepancy between content of the note of information — PERS(2018) 38/2 which provided for ‘a maximum of 3 years’ experience … accumulated within the 5 years preceding the application’ and the requirement imposed by DG HR providing for a ‘maximum of 3 years professional experience’ in general .