ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/36

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2016 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Horno del Espinar (Castello)

(Case T-549/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Castello - Earlier national and EU figurative marks Castelló - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz and A. Marx, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by P. Geroulakos and D. Botis, subsequently by D. Botis and lastly by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Horno del Espinar, SL (El Espinar, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2014 (Joined Cases R 1233/2013-2 and R 1258/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Horno del Espinar and Lidl Stiftung & Co.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 April 2014 (Joined Cases R 1233/2013-2 and R 1258/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Horno del Espinar, SL and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG insofar as the Board of Appeal held that there was a likelihood of confusion as regards the frozen fruit and vegetables in Class 29 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. to bear, in addition to its own costs, three quarters of the costs incurred by EUIPO;

4. Orders EUIPO to bear one quarter of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/22

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council

(Case T-89/14) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - Further listing of the applicant after annulment of the initial listing by the General Court - Error in law - Error in fact - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality - Equal treatment))

(2017/C 022/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Export Development Bank of Iran (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and D. Gauci, agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, principally, annulment of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 306, p. 18), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant, and, in the alternative, annulment of Decision 2013/661 and of Implementing Regulation No 1154/2013 in so far as those acts concern the applicant as from 20 January 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Export Development Bank of Iran to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/25

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Neka Novin v Council

(Case T-436/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality))

(2017/C 121/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Neka Novin Co., Private Joint Stock (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the decision of the Council to maintain the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), as amended by Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), and on the list in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), as communicated by a notice of 15 March 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Neka Novin Co., Private Joint Stock to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the Council to bear half of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/44

Order of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Unilever v EUIPO — Technopharma (Fair & Lovely)

(Case T-811/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Fair & Lovely - Earlier national and Benelux word marks FAIR & LOVELY - Decision on the appeal - Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Legitimate expectations - Misuse of powers - Manifest errors of assessment))

(2017/C 104/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unilever NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Fox, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Technopharma Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Scott, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2014 (Case R 1004/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Technopharma and Unilever.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 October 2014 (Case R 1004/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Technopharma Ltd et Unilever NV;

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Unilever;

3. Orders Technopharma to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Unilever.

(1) OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/8

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2017 — Bayerische Motoren Werke v Commission

(Case T-671/14) (1)

((State aid - Regional investment aid - Aid granted by Germany to BMW for a large investment project in Leipzig concerning the production of two models of electric cars (i3 and i8) - Decision declaring the aid partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU - Incentive effect of the aid - Whether the aid is necessary))

(2017/C 357/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Rosenthal, G. Drauz and M. Schütte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by F. Erlbacher, T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, and subsequently by T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Freistaat Sachsen (Germany) (represented by: T. Lübbig and K. Gaßner, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 4531 final of 9 July 2014 on the State aid No SA.32009 (2011/C) (ex 2010/N) which the Federal Republic of Germany plans to grant to BMW for a large investment project in Leipzig.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bayerische Motoren Werke AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Freistaat Sachsen to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/17

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Green Source Poland v Commission

(Case T-512/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - ERDF - Article 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Refusal to grant a financial contribution to a major project - Undertaking responsible for project implementation - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 195/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Green Source Poland sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Armati, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by M. Clausen and B.-R. Killmann, and subsequently by B.-R. Killmann and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2289 final of 7 April 2014 refusing to make a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘Purchase and implementation of innovative manufacturing technology of biocomponents to produce biofuels’ forming part of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ for structural interventions under the ‘Convergence’ objective in Poland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Green Source Poland sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Brugg Kabel and Kabelwerke Brugg v Commission

(Case T-441/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Brugg Kabel AG (Brugg, Switzerland) and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding (Brugg) (represented by: A. Rinne, A. Boos and M. Lichtenegger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Leupold, H. van Vliet and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by A. Israel, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the [EEA] Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case T-554/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Messi Cuccittini v EUIPO — J-M.-E.V. e hijos (MESSI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MESSI — Earlier EU word marks MASSI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1011))

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Messi Cuccittini v EUIPO — J-M.-E.V. e hijos (MESSI)

(Case T-554/14) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MESSI — Earlier EU word marks MASSI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1011))’

Parties

Applicant: Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: initially J. L. Rivas Zurdo and M. Toro Gordillo, then J.-B. Devaureix and J.-Y. Teindas Maillard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially O. Mondéjar Ortuño, then S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: J-M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL (Granollers, Spain) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. Ceballos Rodríguez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 April 2014 (Case R 1553/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between J-M.-E.V. e hijos and M. Messi Cuccittini.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 April 2014 (Case R 1553/2013-1);

2. Orders EUIPO, in addition to its own costs, to bear those incurred by Mr Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini;

3. Orders J-M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — VTB Bank v Council

(Case T-734/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to property - Right to carry on an economic activity))

(2018/C 392/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VTB Bank PAO, formerly VTB Bank OAO (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyer, C. Claypoole, Solicitor, and M. Lester QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and S. Boelaert, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Havas, T. Scharf and D. Gauci, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders VTB Bank PAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — Larko v Commission

(Case T-423/14 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Aid implemented by Greece - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test - Guarantee premium - Undertaking in difficulty - Awareness of the Greek authorities - Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 257/38)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: I. Drillerakis, E. Rantos and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Decision 2014/539/EU of 27 March 2014 on State aid SA.34572 (20113/C) (ex 13/NN) implemented by Greece for Larco General Mining & Metallurgical Company S.A. (OJ 2014 L 254, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in Cases T-423/14 and T-423/14 RENV, and in Case C-244/18 P.

(1) OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Biogaran v Commission

(Case T-677/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for perindopril, a medicinal product intended for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, in its originator and generic versions - Decision finding an infringement of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU - Agreements intended to delay, or even prevent, the market entry of generic versions of perindopril - Participation of a subsidiary in the infringement committed by its parent company - Imputation of the infringement - Joint and several liability - Ceiling of the fine))

(2019/C 82/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Biogaran (Colombes, France) (represented by: T. Reymond, O. de Juvigny and J. Jourdan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi and B. Mongin, and subsequently by F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 and Article 102 TFEU [Case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier)] in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Biogaran to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/18

Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Coedo Suárez v Council

(Case T-297/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Disciplinary measures - Removal from post and reduction of the invalidity allowance - Dismissal of the action at first instance - Error of law - Duty to state reasons))

(2016/C 078/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Ángel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 in Coedo Suárez v Council (F-38/14, ECR-SC, EU:F:2015:25), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 in Coedo Suárez v Council (F-38/14) in so far as it rejects the second complaint of the first plea in law raised at first instance, concerning the assessment of the mitigating circumstances;

2. Dismisses the action brought by Mr Ángel Coedo Suárez before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-38/14;

3. Orders Mr Coedo Suárez to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and, in addition to bearing his own costs, to pay half of the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in the present proceedings;

4. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear half of its own costs of the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Theralab (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA)

(Case T-144/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA - Earlier EU word mark IDEALINA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 211/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal, SA (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Sena Mioludo, avocat)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Theralab — Produtos Farmacêuticos e Nutracêuticos, Lda (Viseu, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2015 (Case R 1097/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Theralab — Produtos Farmacêuticos e Nutracêuticos and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders L’Oréal, SA, to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/42

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Työhönvalmennus Valma v OHIM (Shape of game chest containing wooden blocks)

(Case T-363/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of game chest containing wooden blocks - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 156/55)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Työhönvalmennus Valma Oy (Lahti, Finland) (represented by: S. Salonen and K. Parviainen, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2015 (Case R 1690/2014-2) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of a game chest containing wooden blocks as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Työhönvalmennus Valma Oy to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/26

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — SCT Lubricants (CHEMPIOIL)

(Case T-34/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark CHEMPIOIL - Earlier figurative mark CHAMPION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wolf Oil Corp. (Hemiksem, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: UAB SCT Lubricants (Klaipėda, Lithuania) (represented by: S. Labesius, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2014 (Case R 1596/2013-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Wolf Oil Corp. and UAB SCT Lubricants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wolf Oil Corp. to pay the costs, including those incurred by UAB SCT Lubricants for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.