EN
C 15/46
Official Journal of the European Union
16.1.2023
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal Trade marks at issue: European Union figurative marks LAPLANDIA Land of purity et al. — European Union trade marks No 6 491 914, No 7 087 281 and No 14 786 883 Procedure before EUIPO: Procedure for entering licences in the Register Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2022 in Case R 909/2021-1
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the contested decision; — order EUIPO and the intervener to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the First Board of Appeal.
Pleas in law — Infringement of Articles 25, 26 and 27 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; — Infringement of Articles 19 and 20 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; — Infringement of Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 16 November 2022 — Nicoventures Trading and Others v Commission (Case T-706/22) (2023/C 15/60) Language of the case: English Parties Applicants: Nicoventures Trading Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and 5 other applicants (represented by: L. Van den Hende, M. Schonberg, J. Penz-Evren and P. Wytinck, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought The applicants claim that the Court should: — order the annulment of the contested measure (1) in its entirety; and — order that the defendant pay the applicants’ costs in these proceedings.
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 that the contested measure goes beyond the powers delegated to the Commission under Articles 7(12) and 11(6) of Directive 2014/40/EU (2), for the following four reasons: — by regulating a novel tobacco product, the contested measure unlawfully addresses an ‘essential element’ within the meaning of Article 290(1) TFEU;