ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/16

Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2018 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO — bpost (BEPOST)

(Case T-118/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark BEPOST - Earlier EU figurative mark ePost and earlier national word mark POST - Non-registered mark or sign used in the course of trade POST - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No detriment to reputation and no dilution - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court))

(2018/C 123/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and G. Müllejans, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: bpost NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by L. Hubert and K. Ongena, and subsequently by H. Dhondt and J. Cassiman, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 (Case R 3107/2014-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Post and bpost

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deutsche Post AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/24

Judgment of the General Court of 20 April 2018 — holyGhost v EUIPO — CBM (holyGhost)

(Case T-439/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark holyGhost - Earlier EU word mark HOLY - 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) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 190/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: holyGhost GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Wiedemann and D. Engbrink, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by A. Schifko and subsequently by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2016 (Case R 2867/2014-5), concerning opposition proceedings between CBM and holyGhost.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. The action is dismissed;

2. HolyGhost GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/30

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2018 — Crocs v EUIPO — Gifi Diffusion (Footwear)

(Case T-651/16) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing footwear - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Lack of novelty - Disclosure prior to the priority date - Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion - Additional evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal - Articles 5, 7 and Article 63(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2018/C 152/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Crocs, Inc. (Niwot, Colorado, United States) (represented by: H. Seymour, L. Cassidy, J. Guise and D. Knight, Solicitors, N. Hadjadj Cazier, M. Berger and H. Haouideg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gifi Diffusion (Villeneuve-sur-Lot, France) (represented by: C. de Chassey, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2016 (Case R 853/2014-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Gifi Diffusion and Crocs.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Crocs, Inc. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Gifi Diffusion in the proceedings before the General Court.

(1) OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.
Case T-675/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark mycard2go — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94, first sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go)

(Case T-675/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark mycard2go — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94, first sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Wirecard AG (Aschheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Bayer, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 (Case R 282/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign mycard2go as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 July 2016 (Case R 282/2016-4);

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including the costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

( 1 ) OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.
Case T-747/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 – Vincenti v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Opinion of the Invalidity Committee — Discretion of Appointing Authority — Articles 53 and 78 of the Staff Regulations — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons)

Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 – Vincenti v EUIPO

(Case T-747/16) ( 1 )

‛(Civil service — Officials — Social security — Opinion of the Invalidity Committee — Discretion of Appointing Authority — Articles 53 and 78 of the Staff Regulations — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons)’

Parties

Applicant: Guillaume Vincenti (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 18 December 2015 refusing to recognise the applicant’s permanent total incapacity and to declare that he is to be retired.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Guillaume Vincenti to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
Case T-882/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2018 — Sipral World v EUIPO — La Dolfina (DOLFINA) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark DOLFINA — No genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2018 — Sipral World v EUIPO — La Dolfina (DOLFINA)

(Case T-882/16) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark DOLFINA — No genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))’

Parties

Applicant: Sipral World, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero and A. Ruo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: La Dolfina, SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J.Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 1897/2015-2), relating to revocation proceedings between La Dolfina and Sipral World.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sipral World, SL, to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.
Case T-801/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Fedtke v EESC (Civil service — Officials — Retirement — Retirement age — Request to extend the period of employment — First and second paragraphs of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations — Interest of the service — Purely confirmatory measure — New and substantial facts — Admissibility)

Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Fedtke v EESC

(Case T-801/16 RENV) ( 1 )

‛(Civil service — Officials — Retirement — Retirement age — Request to extend the period of employment — First and second paragraphs of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations — Interest of the service — Purely confirmatory measure — New and substantial facts — Admissibility)’

Parties

Applicant: Ingrid Fedtke (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka, A. Carvajal and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the EESC decision rejecting the applicant’s application to have her period of employment extended until the age of 66.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Ingrid Fedtke to pay the costs incurred in the present proceedings before both the General Court of the European Union and the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.

( 1 ) OJ C 320, 28.9.2015 (case initially brought before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under case number F-107/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Crédit agricole v ECB

(Case T-758/16) (1)

((Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 328/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax, G. Bassani and C. Olivier, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann and F. Louis, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2016 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/165 of the ECB, of 24 August 2016, pursuant to Article 4(1)(d), of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), and of Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, and corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2016 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/165 of the European Central Bank of 24 August 2016;

2. Orders the ECB to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.
Case T-325/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 — České dráhy v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Proportionality — Non-arbitrariness — Obligation to state reasons — Reasonable grounds — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Right to respect for private life — Rights of the defence)

Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 — České dráhy v Commission

(Case T-325/16) ( 1 )

‛(Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Proportionality — Non-arbitrariness — Obligation to state reasons — Reasonable grounds — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Right to respect for private life — Rights of the defence)’

Parties

Applicant: České dráhy a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Muzikář, J. Kindl and V. Kuča, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, A. Biolan, G. Meessen, P. Němečková and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 2417 final of 18 April 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003, addressed to České dráhy and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it, ordering them to submit to an inspection (Case AT.40156 — Falcon).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 2417 final of 18 April 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, addressed to České dráhy and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it, ordering them to submit to an inspection (Case AT.40156 — Falcon), in so far as it concerns routes other than the Prague-Ostrava route and conduct other than the alleged predatory pricing practices;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.
Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Sweden v Commission

(Case T-260/16) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Decoupled direct aids - On-the-spot checks - Remote sensing - Assessment of risk factors - Corrective action to be taken by the Member State concerned - Assessment of the financial loss - Proportionality))

(2018/C 408/59)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: initially, L. Swedenborg, A. Falk, N. Otte Widgren, C. Meyer-Seitz and U. Persson, and subsequently L. Swedenborg, A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking, primarily, annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 Μarch 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16), in so far as it concerns decoupled direct aids paid to the Kingdom of Sweden totalling EUR 8 811 286,44 for the claim year 2013 and, in the alternative, the reduction of the amount of those decoupled direct aids excluded from financing in the amount of EUR 1 022 259,46.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 Μarch 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it concerns decoupled direct aids paid to the Kingdom of Sweden totalling EUR 8 811 286,44 for the claim year 2013;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden;

3. Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Chefaro Ireland v EUIPO — Laboratoires M&L (NUIT PRECIEUSE)

(Case T-905/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark NUIT PRECIEUSE - Earlier national word mark EAU PRECIEUSE - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 381/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chefaro Ireland DAC (Dublin, Ireland)) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, D. Walicka and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Laboratoires M&L SA (Manosque, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2016 (Case R 2596/2015-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Chefaro Ireland and Laboratoires M&L.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Chefaro Ireland DAC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2018 — OY v Commission

(Case T-605/16)

((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Article 3b of the CEOS - Recruitment - Classification in grade - Account taken of professional experience - General Implementing Provisions for Article 79(2) of the CEOS))

(2018/C 436/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: OY (represented by: N. Flandin and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, C. Berardis-Kayser and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Commission of 2 October 2015 rejecting the applicant’s request for a review of her classification in function group IV, grade 15, step 1 and, second, in so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of the AECE of 29 March 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Tataram v Commission

(Case T-546/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Adjustment of remuneration - Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 - Salary slip - Time-limit for bringing an action - Out of time - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marina Tataram (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno initially, then F. Moyse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara initially, then G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga initially, then M. Bauer and R. Meyer, Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision fixing the applicant’s remuneration in respect of May 2014, as given specific expression in the salary slip for that month sent to her on 15 May 2014, which is the first salary slip to apply Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 12).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ms Marina Tataram to pay the costs.

3. Declares that the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 178, 1.6.2015 (Case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-42/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
1)

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it concerns the financial correction imposed on the Kingdom of Spain and in so far as it imposes — a flat-rate correction of 25 % regarding wooded grazing pastures for the claim years 2010 to 2013; and — a flat-rate correction of 10 % regarding shrub pastures declared by the ‘rearers’ for the claim years 2010 to 2013;
Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Barata v Parliament

(Case T-854/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2015 promotion procedure - Certification procedure - Exclusion from the definitive list of officials authorised to follow the training programme - Article 45a of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence))

(2019/C 25/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: João Miguel Barata (Evere, Belgium) (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, lawyers, and J. Grayston, solicitor)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Nessaf and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of the Parliament’s decision dated 29 January 2016 and the confirmatory decision dated 29 March 2016 not to include the applicant’s name on the list of officials authorised to participate in 2015 in the training programme in respect of the 2015 certification procedure, secondly, of the decision dated 25 August 2016 rejecting the complaint, thirdly, of Notice of internal competition 2015/023, communicated to the staff on 18 September 2015, and, fourthly, of the draft list of officials selected to participate in the training programme in question.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr João Miguel Barata to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.