do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-564/25: Action brought on 15 August 2025 – Reinwald and HK Evolution v EUIPO – International Nutrition Research Center (MAP)
Date: 2025-08-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, baby food, dietary product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_202505092EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5092


29.9.2025






Action brought on 15 August 2025 – Reinwald and HK Evolution v EUIPO – International Nutrition Research Center (MAP)


(Case T-564/25)

(C/2025/5092)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicants: Heinz Reinwald (Meneou, Cyprus), HK Evolution LTD (Larnaka, Cyprus) (represented by: M. Pütz-Poulalion, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: International Nutrition Research Center, Inc. (Los Pinos Circle, Coral Gables, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicants before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark MAP – International registration designating the European Union No 1 087 307
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 June 2025 in Case R 1334/2024-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5092/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-566/25: Action brought on 15 August 2025 – Worldwide Machinery v EUIPO – Scaip (SUPERIOR MANUFACTURING)
Date: 2025-08-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, gas pipeline, hydraulic works, machinery, oil pipeline, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_202505472EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5472


20.10.2025






Action brought on 15 August 2025 – Worldwide Machinery v EUIPO – Scaip (SUPERIOR MANUFACTURING)


(Case T-566/25)

(C/2025/5472)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Worldwide Machinery Ltd (Channelview, Texas, United States) (represented by: B. Woltering, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scaip SpA (Parma, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative SUPERIOR MANUFACTURING –European Union trade mark No 11 385 333
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2025 in Case R 1270/2024-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in its entirety, and to award the assignment of the trademark at issue to the applicant;










—


order the reimbursement of its costs in the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 21(2)(a) and Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5472/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-567/25: Action brought on 15 August 2025 – Mowi Poland v Commission
Date: 2025-08-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, disclosure of information








C_202505222EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5222


6.10.2025






Action brought on 15 August 2025 – Mowi Poland v Commission


(Case T-567/25)

(C/2025/5222)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Mowi Poland S.A. (Ustka, Poland) (represented by: Z. Kiedacz and K. Puchalska, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the implied decision of the European Commission of 5 June 2025, issued in the cases examined by the Commission under the reference numbers 2024/6996, 2024/6997 and 2025/0528 and rejecting MOWI Poland S.A.’s application, made on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001, for access to public documents;










—


order the Commission to pay 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 infringement, by the Commission, of Article 15(3) TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001. (1)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging failure, by the Commission, to fulfil its obligation to state reasons. As can be seen from the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, legal acts adopted by the EU institutions are subject to the obligation to state reasons. The statement of reasons must be appropriate to the measure at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted that measure. In a situation where the Commission has issued an implied negative decision for the purposes of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, the decision is not accompanied by any statement of reasons, which is manifestly in breach of the obligation to state reasons.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5222/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-565/25: Action brought on 15 August 2025 – Xiamen Oamic Biotech v Commission
Date: 2025-08-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, flavouring, import (EU), originating product, rights of the defence








C_202505093EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5093


29.9.2025






Action brought on 15 August 2025 – Xiamen Oamic Biotech v Commission


(Case T-565/25)

(C/2025/5093)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Xiamen Oamic Biotech Co. Ltd (Xiamen, China) (represented by: M. Sánchez Rydelski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1151 of 11 June 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of vanillin originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the contested Regulation’), in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the defendant, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the applicant.





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 that the defendant committed manifest errors in the interpretation and application of Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘the basic Regulation’), (1) as amended.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors in the interpretation and application of Article 9 of the basic Regulation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors in the interpretation and application of Articles 19a and 18(4) of the basic Regulation.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation is lacking sufficient reasoning.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the procedure leading up to the contested Regulation was not compliant with general principles of EU law, such as the principle of sound administration and rights of defence.






(1)  
            OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5093/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)